compassionate rationalism leadership questionnaire (crlq) as...
TRANSCRIPT
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
1 www.globalbizresearch.org
Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire (CRLQ) as
the Measurement Scale for the Leadership of Compassionate
Rationalism in Lifelong Education
Eun-Soo Choi,
Professor, Dept. of Lifelong Education,
Soongsil University, South Korea.
E-mail: [email protected]
Ji-Yeon Yeon,
Lecturer, Dept. of Lifelong Education,
Soongsil University, South Korea.
E-mail: [email protected]
Yong-Kook Shin,
Ph D Student, Dept. of Lifelong Education,
Soongsil University, South Korea.
E-mail: [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to develop the Compassionate Rationalism Leadership
Questionnaire (CRLQ) as a measurement scale for the leadership of Compassionate
Rationalism in lifelong education. As the method for the study, with reference to the related
literature review and pertinent previous study the FGI with the specialists were done to collect
measurement variables and questionnaire items for the preliminary survey. Based on the result
of the preliminary survey, 126 items were selected with which the main survey was conducted.
The exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the internal consistent reliability of CRLQ
was found to be very high and that 4 factor structures in both Rationalism and Compassionism
were drawn, respectively. In order to validate the factor structure drawn from the result of the
exploratory factor analysis, the confirmatory factor analysis with the data collected from 292
subjects was done to confirm that the level of fit indices of CRLQ model was acceptable and
supported the validity of the 8 factor structure and the hierarchical model. To conclude, CRLQ
was composed of 2 latent variables, that is, Rationalism that was composed of 4 sub-variables
which were rational contextual judgement, strategic prediction, logical problem solving, and
optimized control management, and Compassionism with 4 sub-variables of trust-based
empowerment, empathic consideration, embracing humility, and altruistic collaboration. Also,
the CRLQ was finalized with 55 items, which was confirmed to be validated and reliable.
___________________________________________________________________________
Key Words: Compassionism, Rationalism, Compasssionate rationalism Leadership
JEL Classification: C 19, G13, G 14
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
2 www.globalbizresearch.org
1. Introduction
It has been indicated that the traditional leadership approaches, such as Trait theory,
Behavior theory, or Transformational theory, have several limitations despite many advantages
when they come to lifelong education. One of their limitations is that they do not represent
properly those criteria values of lifelong education, such as liberty, equality, and equity which
undermine the interactions between adult educators and adult learners (Choi, 2011). It is
because the traditional leadership approaches cannot be a leadership paradigm for lifelong
education and here we need a new leadership paradigm. To meet this, Choi (2011) presented
his 'Compassionate Rationalism Leadership’ as an alternative leadership paradigm and tried to
conceptualize it. According to Choi (2011), ‘Compassionate Rationalism Leadership’ (CRL)
meant leadership which is based on rationalism but shows compassion depending on the
situation. CRL can give a more balanced sight between two paradigms, the hard side of strategic
and objective leadership and a soft side of leadership (Choi, 2011).
Choi (2011) suggested that for the settlement of CRL conceptualization in lifelong
education, a measurement scale was needed to develop. That is to say, in order to establish a
complete theoretical leadership concept, a site-centric measurement scale should be made based
on conceptualization. The work and its validity and reliability should be verified. It was also
noticed because from a more macroscopic aspects, the development of a measurement scale for
CRL which could gauge the level of leadership within the lifelong education context would
provide a new theoretical and field-oriented leadership framework and model in lifelong
education and corporate training in Korea. Furthermore, it would provide an empirical basis for
activating general leadership research.
The purpose of the study is to develop the Compassionate Rationalism Leadership
Questionnaire (CRLQ) as a measurement scale for the leadership of Compassionate
Rationalism in lifelong education.
2. Related Literature Review
2.1 Rationalism
It is based on several assumptions. Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical
structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and the intellect can directly
grasp these truths. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical
evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in
which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.”
2.1.1 Rationalistic Paradigm
In general, most of the future plans are made by the principle of ‘predict and control’ based
on the rationalistic paradigm. In terms of leadership education for adults, it is essential to apply
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
3 www.globalbizresearch.org
the rationalistic paradigm for improving efficiency. It is absolutely required for rationalistic
leadership based on predict-and-control planning when managing institutions.
It is based on several assumptions. Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical
structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and the intellect can directly
grasp these truths. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical
evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in
which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.”
Prediction of Leadership
In rationalistic paradigm, a leader is trying to find the best alternative mentioned above on
behalf of the entire organization. In order to do it, he predicts the shape of the most likely future
which will be the basis of assessment of various plans. It is natural that the future holds such
uncertainty that we are not able to predict exactly. However, the basic hidden premise of
prediction is that there is an expert who is much more able to predict than others, and the best
we can do is to seek for his opinions on what is to come in the future. A rationalistic lifelong
education leader will describe one aspect of the future he predicts and do his best to list
characteristics of the organizational environment in future in detail.
Statistical approach to scenario planning
The term “scenario planning” is used for the traditional analysis method of decision making
including probability measure for the future. The aim of scenario planning agrees to that of
rationalistic paradigm as it creates the single standard to review various alternatives, sets the
direction of the reason, and finally identifies the best alternative. A typical example of this
approach in the field of lifelong education would be to set the level of the highest and the lowest
in certain probability when recruiting adult learners. If the level is successfully set, then various
possible alternatives can be measured by the scenario and each weighted according to the
probability of realization. In this way, each alternative is made comprehensive assessment and
as a result, the best alternative is chosen among them.
2.1.2 Limitations of Rationalistic Paradigm
Men do not always make a perfect decision as they have not only the limited ability of
perception and intelligence but also the limited possession of values. They usually lack of
reasoning (Choi, 2011).
First, it is difficult to pursue the intrinsic values and the collective rationality at the same
time. A man himself alone can be altruistic, ethical and rational, but once he belongs to a group,
then all changes. He or/and the group is likely to be selfish, unethical, and irrational (Hogwood
and Gunn, 1984). Second. Organizations may be wrong. Actions taken by the organization are
not always reasonable or perfect (Niebuhr, 1988). Third, rationality can be changed or adjusted
depending on the context such as procedures or practice, surrounding environment and so on
(Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). Fourth, resources do matter. Time, money, and energy are
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
4 www.globalbizresearch.org
essential in order to pursue rationality. Fifth, too much is as bad as too little. Emphasizing the
rationalistic paradigm brings organization efficiency, but the undue emphasis on rationality
may lead to members’ isolation within the organization.
2.2 Compassionism
The word “compassion” originally comes from Latin and its literal meaning is ‘share the
pain with someone’. Compassion means to understand and share others’ emotions. It is a kind
of soft side of leadership behavior. It is considered quite strange for results-driven leaders who
are used to making rational decisions based on facts and statistical numbers. It is never easy to
practice this compassionism in formal organizations. These empathetic affections and actions
are required to increase openness towards tolerance of others’ pain (Zwillick, 2004).
2.2.1 Compassionate Leader
Compassionate leadership is the process through which leaders try to influence people with
the heart rather than the head. Then, how do compassionate leaders make consideration to their
followers?
“To be compassionate” suggests acting in accordance with one’s conscience or ethical
values (Raelin, 2003). It can be subjective to act by values as it is hard to find consensus on
what value to follow. Also values are usually hidden in the bottom of the motivation when
doing certain actions, therefore, to act with compassion is to be democratic and act in
cooperation with members in a community. This has something in common with lifelong
education leadership which participates in social activities with followers on the basis of
democratic ideal. Compassionate leaders do not make any decision excluding their followers’
opinions and prefer to think together, decide together, and work together and believe doing
together leads to better outcomes than doing alone.
2.2.2 Value of Compassion
What values fit in with compassionate leadership behaviors? One of them would be the
value of humility, which means that no one is inherently or fatefully superior to others. So
humility goes with respect for each individual. Leaders always keep in mind that all people
should be respected and have an inherent dignity as a human being (Raelin, 2003).
Practicing humility can implicitly contain practical value. Leaders who practice humility
soon realize that they are not the only person who has good ideas. They are trying to receive
help from the community they belong to and find solutions for all.
Trust is another important value in compassionate leadership. From the perspective of the
organization, trust lies in the middle of a continuum made between faith and confidence. To
trust someone’s leadership in the organization means that followers have emotional acceptance
of their leader’s decision even in the absence of substantial evidence. In other words, even
though there is not enough evidence, followers accept the leader’s decision and behaviors, and
that we call, trust.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
5 www.globalbizresearch.org
There are three ways for compassionate leaders to obtain trust from their followers;
demonstrate their competencies, show their purity, and treat followers with respect (Raelin,
2003).
2.2.3 Behaviors of Compassionate Value
If someone pursues compassionate leadership, he or she must be ready to be assessed by his
values and behaviors and get feedback from it. That means, he should be willing to publicly
express his opinions, emotion, inherent values, basic principles and final decision.
What attributes of a compassionate leader should we consider? A compassionate leader is
someone who communicates openly. He is openly talking and sharing his thoughts and feelings
with other members. Just as important, he asks sincere questions and listens with interest and
intention. Within companies and organizations, leaders encourage an open dialogue among
teams and employees (Zust, 2008).
A compassionate leader is flexible. The leader who is willing to set aside rules and
procedures for the greater good demonstrates his or her human side. When he takes the high
road with employees, he never forgets, and as a result, he is able to develop more loyal
employees, people who want to work for him because he cares. He doesn't just pay lip service
to a cause; he makes a promise and keeps it. By doing so he shows that he genuinely cares about
his followers’ well-being.
A compassionate leader is not afraid to show emotion. People believe that if we show our
emotions in a business environment, people will think we are weak. That perception is
changing. We now know that the leader who is not afraid to show emotion has greater depth of
character and is not swayed by public opinion of what is politically correct behavior.
A compassionate leader leads by example. The actions of a leader who tries to be
compassionate on the outside but does it more for winning votes or stroking his or her
constituents is disingenuous. Nothing does more to build a person's character than getting down
into the trenches in an hour of need. A leader is not someone who we idolize because of position,
status or income but rather someone who genuinely, and humbly, puts others first.
A compassionate leader does not want to control other people in order to increase his self-
esteem. He also does not want people to have respect for him. What he cares about is to help
people improve to a higher level and to help the entire organization. He recognizes each
member as someone who has potential to contribute to the organization regardless of position
or status.
A compassionate leader forms the compassionate community which accepts diversity of
opinion. Even though an opinion may not agree with the existing mental model or practice, he
does accept it. Empowering lifelong education members can assist in forming a compassionate
community. Through empowerment leadership, members can disclose their competencies and
get a sense of accomplishment.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
6 www.globalbizresearch.org
2.2.4 Possibilities and Limitations of Compassionism
Is there a place for the compassionate leader in today's heartless organization climate? Yes.
The compassionate leader brings a sense of balance and a fresh approach to doing business in
the organization. In this new millennium, we may find that those who exhibit the characteristics
of a compassionate leader will fare better in handling crises and communicating more
effectively in any economic, educational and social climate (Raelin, 2003).
2.3 Compassionate Rationalism
Compassionate rationalism is a new term combining compassionism with rationalism. It is
part of an effort to enhance both aspects and at the same time to compensate for their limitations.
Basically, rationalistic leadership paradigm takes responsibility for the main part and
compassionate leadership paradigm the rest. On the basis of rationalism, compassionate
rationalism includes compassion depending on the situation (Choi, 2011).
In general, a leader has more power and control than his followers, so he is responsible for
sensitively reacting how his behaviors can influence them. A compassionate rationalistic leader
in the field of lifelong education should increase efficiency and effectiveness in the overall
situation of organizational management and at the same time he should try to realize the values
that lifelong education pursues – ethics, equality, and fairness and so on – by standing by his
followers with dignity and respect. A compassionate rationalistic leader should help his
followers to overcome the difficulties and conflicts they face personally. Through this process,
the relationship between a leader and followers results in not only increasing the level of
morality and equality from both sides but also implementing the effectiveness of the
organization.
Someone may suggest rationalistic compassionism rather than compassionate rationalism.
It is possible, too, if the priority of the two leadership paradigms is to change. In this case,
compassionate leadership paradigm takes care of the main part and rationalistic leadership
paradigm the rest. But compassionate rationalistic leadership is believed to be more appropriate
when it comes to lifelong education leadership (Choi, 2011). That is because lifelong education
leadership should include administrative management, team leadership and supervisory
leadership, all of which are required to be based on rationalism (Choi, 2011).
Moreover, in order to lead lifelong education effectively, lifelong education leaders
basically need to show the hard side of rationalistic and strategic leadership, but at the same
time, they should also try to make up for the weak points of rationalism by expressing soft
leadership when required. That’s what makes leaders be effective lifelong education
professionals.
To conclude, compassionate rationalism lies in two paradigms. If it keeps a balanced view
towards both paradigms and keeps pursuing efficiency, equality, and equity, then it will be a
fascinating new leadership paradigm in the field of lifelong education.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
7 www.globalbizresearch.org
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
In this study, 738 respondents’ survey replies were retrieved from on/off-line survey
targeting adults over age 20. Among these replies, unreliable or half-hearted responses were
excluded and the final 692 responses were used for analysis. Looking into the demographical
characteristics of survey respondents whose replies were used for analysis, out of the total 692
respondents, there are 346 male(50%) and 346 female(50%). The gender ratio in the sample
group is the same. By age group, respondents in their 20s are 96(13.9%), in their 30s are
155(22.4%), in their 40s are 208(30.1%), in their 50s are 220(31.8%) and over age 60 are
12(1.8%).
3.2 Procedures
In this study, first by analyzing previous studies, we abstracted the concept and sub-factors
related with Compassionate Rationalism. Based on these results we conducted FGI (Focus
Group Interview) with 15 doctorate or equivalent researchers who specialize in Leadership and
Lifelong education. Through the FGI we abstracted the specific behaviors and traits
corresponding with the concept of Rationalism Leadership and Compassionism Leadership.
And then we explored further ‘The factors and behavior characteristics of Rational leadership
and Compassionate leadership’. The summary of ‘Factors of Compassionate Rationalism
Leadership’ abstracted by FGI is suggested in the ‘Table 2’. It shows the factors categorized
according by the level of classification.
We considered both the conclusion of previous study for developing preliminary questions
and the conclusion of FGI together and determined factors derived from both conclusions,
keeping the overlap to a minimum. And then we developed preliminary questionnaire comprise
selected factors. In that questionnaire, Rationalism Leadership factors consist of such
hypothetical sub constructs as Strategic thinking, Select and concentration,
Table 1: Participants
Classification Number (%) Total
Gender Male 346(50%)
692(100%)
female 346(50%)
Age
20s 96(13.9%)
30s 155(22.4%)
40s 208(30.1%)
50s 220(31.8%)
Over 60 12(1.8%)
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
8 www.globalbizresearch.org
Planning/Organizing, Resolution, Result-oriented, etc. and Compassionism Leadership factors
consist of such hypothetical sub constructs as Respecting others, Pursuit of autonomy,
Cooperation, flexibility, Self-acceptance, Sympathy, Leading by example, Spirit of self-
sacrifice, Responsiveness to others, Consideration for others, etc.
We developed items based on each hypothetical factor and through three time’s checking
we removed or modified items that have overlap with others in meaning and items that are
improper contextually or unclear in meaning. As a result, we invented 12 factors and 138
preliminary items measuring Rationalism Leadership and 12 factors and 121 preliminary items
measuring Compassionism Leadership. Based on this, we developed ‘Compassionate
Rationalism Leadership’ preliminary review assessment instrument. This instrument has 259
items that are assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale rating (from 1: strongly disagree to 5:
strongly agree).
From October to December 2013, we preliminarily surveyed 267 adults. We analyzed the
responses to 259 items, using descriptive statistics and dropped extreme items of which the
mean is more than 4.0. And through exploratory factor analysis we excluded items that have
little in common(less than 3.0) and items of which factor scores are low(less than 4) or shows
redundancy. And finally 126 items were invented.
Relying on the items derived from preliminary review, we conducted main survey of 738
adults from Feb. to Apr. 2014. In order to prevent order effect, the questionnaire was designed
in two different forms changing the order of items measuring RL and items measuring CL.
Questionnaire were delivered in person or distributed and retrieved by on-line.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
9 www.globalbizresearch.org
Table 2: Summary of Factors Abstracted by FGI
Large
classification
Middle
classification Small classification
Rationalism
Strategic thinking Planning ability, Organizing ability, Strategy as a mean,
Establishing goal-oriented strategy
Effectiveness Maximizing effectiveness, Select and concentration,
Division of labor, Calculating efficiency
Considering
reality
Problem recognition and solution, Grasping the problem
wholly, Situation analysis, SWOT analysis
Rational thinking
Rational decision making, Rational standard setting,
Reasonable support, Rational data collection and
utilization
Objectiveness
Probabilistic prediction, Acceptance of various opinions,
Official impersonality, Sensible behavior,
Distinction between public and private affairs
Predictive ability Prediction and control, Estimate of future, Optimization,
Finding optimum alternative and decision making
Formal
relationship
Cooperation, Pursuing scientific management,
Authority, Driving force, Stability of transactional
relationship
Compassionism
Receptive attitude Accepting criticism, Emotional acceptance, Admitting
variety, Empathy, Recognition of self and others
Humanistic
values
Consideration, Respecting dignity, Humility, Respecting
Individuality, Genuineness
Supporting
growth
Supporting self-fulfillment, Consideration and welfare,
Recognition of potential, Broaden benefits,
Empowerment, Trust, Granting autonomy
Conscientious
behavior Ethicality, Conscience, Morality
Open
communication
Openness, Altruism, Organization-oriented,
Cooperative problem solving, Democratic attitude
Genial behavior Gentle behaviors, Amicable attitude, Emotional
behavior, Pain-sharing
Professionalism Supporting /passing on expertise, Sharing information,
Compensating the defect
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
10 www.globalbizresearch.org
3.3 Statistical Analysis
SPSS 19.0 and AMOS 18.0 were used to analyze the collected data. In order to determine
the degree of independence of 8 domains in both dimensions (RL, CL), we performed
exploratory factor analysis, using Varimax evolving principal component analysis’ and in order
to determine the structure of instrument we performed confirmatory factor analysis. In order to
verify reliability of the instrument used for this study, we checked the internal consistency using
Cronbach Alpha Coefficient.
4. Results
4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
First, the EFA results of each dimension were as follows. The data of 400 people from a
sample of 692 people were used for EFA. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett's
test of sphericity were done to verify validity and goodness of item configuration on sub-factors
of dimensions. The results were shown in <Table 3>. KMO measure investigated partial
correlation between variables and measured samples of adequacy which indicated whether the
number of factors and data used in factor analysis were proper. The value of KMO measure of
‘Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire’ (CRLQ) was .941. The value of chi-
square approximation in Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant as 126999.269(df=1485).
Therefore, item setting for factor analysis were proper.
Table 3: KMO Measure and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity of CRLQ
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure .941
Bartlett's test of sphericity
chi-square approximation 12699.269
df 1485
p .000
In this study, the principal component analysis and the Varimax rotation for each dimension
were conducted in order to investigate the degree of independence of the eight sub-factors of
two dimensions and to find the inherent structure between the variables. In EFA, factors were
extracted by the principal component analysis, with the standards of the eigenvalues 1 (Kaiser,
1960) applied for the number of factors, and The Scree test (Cattell, 1966) was referenced. As
the result of analysis, the eigenvalues of all of the factors were greater than one, and the total
variance explained by eight factors was shown as 59.2%. Factor one had the most explanatory
amount at 10.360% and factor 8 was analyzed as having the fewest amount of explanation at
5.612%. The Eight-factor structure appeared to be most interpretable. The EFA results of
CRLQ are shown in <Table 4>.
Table 4: The EFA Results of CRLQ(N=400)
Name of Factor F1 F2 F3 F4 h2
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
11 www.globalbizresearch.org
Logical problem-solving
.761 .732
.760 .698
.727 .656
.717 .715
.695 .653
.666 .620
.659 .610
.612 .595
Altruistic cooperation
.741 .689
.676 .557
.648 .576
.631 .525
.623 .556
.566 .545
.511 .503
.480 .467
.459 .492
Optimal administrative
control
.761 .760
.716 .647
.713 .689
.710 .685
.704 .661
.559 .497
.472 .531
Trust-based Empowerment
.733 .631
.689 .620
.674 .663
.656 .585
.613 .557
.604 .596
.582 .588
Eigenvalue 17.975 3.400 2.580 2.184
% of variance 10.360 8.321 7.950 7.461
cumulative % 10.360 18.681 26.631 34.091
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
12 www.globalbizresearch.org
(continued)
Name of Factor F5 F6 F7 F8 h2
Rational estimate of the
situation
.777 .734
.733 .647
.696 .651
.636 .565
.562 .552
.553 .638
Strategic predictions
.638 .542
.624 .573
.583 .529
.583 .491
.552 .497
.545 .533
.540 .477
Tolerant humility
.701 .620
.693 .617
.680 .559
.520 .542
.451 .420
.438 .449
Empathic consideration
.778 .718
.758 .713
.716 .610
.547 .470
.404 .515
Eigenvalue 1.826 1.676 1.518 1.382
% of variance 6.730 6.723 6.009 5.612
cumulative % 40.821 47.545 53.554 59.166
Items of this factor loadings were lower than .40 and items in the cross loading with other
variables were preferentially deleted from 126 items used in the main survey. In addition, items
which had low interpretability of factors or measured the same meaning and concepts were
reviewed and finally 55 items were selected.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
13 www.globalbizresearch.org
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To confirm the factor structure resulted from the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis on the
final CRLQ was performed using AMOS 18.0. The remaining 292 data which were not used
for EFA were analyzed (See <Table 5>). Items of rationalism and compassionism leadership
sub-factors were parceled for CFA. Item parceling was done because of the advantage of the
smaller parameters was estimated. The more stable the result, the more contrasting the case
(Bandalos, 2002).
Table 5: CFA Fit Index (n=292)
Fit index χ² df p
absolute fit index relative fit index
GFI AGFI RMSEA TLI NFI CFI
One-factor
model 1999.38 252 .000 .577 .497 .154 .586 .592 .622
Two-factor
model 1493.91 251 .000 .670 .606 .130 .704 .695 .731
Eight-factor
model 474.58 224 .000 .879 .839 .062 .933 .903 .946
Hierarchical
model 537.52 243 .000 .863 .831 .065 .928 .890 .936
Although χ² as a CFA result was generally the most representative and absolute index fit, it was
affected by the size of the sample. Therefore, other indices should be considered together even if χ² shows
statistical significance. The three indices were presented respectively as absolute fit indices and relative
fit indices. Absolute fit index was an absolute evaluation of the theoretical model itself instead of a
relative evaluation comparing theoretical model's fitness with other model's. Relative fit index showed
how this theoretical model described relatively well compared to the inappropriate models (Lee & Im,
2006).
Among the absolute fit indices on the integrated hierarchical model of CRLQ, GFI (goodness of fit
index) was .863 and AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index) was .831, as shown on <Table 5>. The result
that these two indices were respectively more than .8 met the acceptance criteria of a good fit. Similarly,
it showed a RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) value of 0.065, a result of an acceptable
level. Acceptance criteria of the RMSEA value were as follows: RMSEA <.05 meant a good fit, RMSEA
<.08 meant an acceptable fit, and RMSEA <.10 meant outside the acceptable range of fitness (Browne
& Cudeck, 1993). And among the relative fit indices on the hierarchical model, TLI (Turker Lewis index)
was .928, NFI (Normed fit index) was .890, and CFI (Comparative fit index) was .936. The closer to 1
these indices were, the better the model fit was, and if the indices were more than .8, the model fit was
regarded as acceptable (Kline, 1998). Accordingly, the results of CFA could be confirmed from
comprehensive consideration of all fit indices.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
14 www.globalbizresearch.org
CFA fit indices are presented in <Table 5>, according to the one-factor model, the two-factor model,
the 8-factor model, and the hierarchical model. The one factor model is single dimensional one as CRL
and the two-factor model was analyzed by two factors - rationalism leadership and compassionism
leadership. As a result, the optimal model was the eight -factor structure based on acceptable multifaceted
fit indices evaluation. Also in the hierarchical structure model, the overall fit indices met the acceptance
criteria. Therefore the validity of the integrated hierarchical model consisted of four factors of rationalism
paradigm and four factors of compassionate paradigm was ensured. [Figure 1] presented the structural
model of CRL. That the correlation between rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm in
[Figure 1] appears to be slightly a higher level of .79 might imply that two kinds of leaderships could
converge on one concept as CRL and complement each other in an integrated leadership even though
they were distinguishable contradictory concepts and their focuses were different.
Figure 1: Hierarchical Estimate Model of Compassionate Rationalism Leadership
4.3 Correlation between Factors
The results of correlation analysis between CRL sub-factors can be seen in <Table 6>. All
correlations between the eight sub-factors were significant at the p=.001 level. Looking at the
correlation coefficient between those factors, most showed high correlations of more than .4
except for the correlation coefficients between trust-based empowerment and logical problem-
solving, and between logical problem-solving and tolerant humility. Since sub-factors showed
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
15 www.globalbizresearch.org
high correlations at the appropriate level, they appeared to be suitable as measuring constructs
of CRL.
Table 6: Correlations between CRL Sub-factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rational estimate
of the situation 1
Strategic
predictions .571*** 1
Logical problem-
solving .511*** .523*** 1
Optimal
administrative
control
.598*** .606*** .410*** 1
Trust-based
empowerment .471*** .469*** .368*** .495*** 1
Empathic
consideration .494*** .534*** .465*** .500*** .594*** 1
Tolerant humility .454*** .513*** .379*** .547*** .640*** .704*** 1
Altruistic
cooperation .409*** .462*** .455*** .459*** .726*** .572*** .636*** 1
M 3.67 3.84 3.72 3.78 3.92 3.93 3.89 3.93
SD .614 .555 .615 .512 .562 .556 .534 .532
4.4 Reliability Analysis
Cronbach's ɑ, an internal consistency reliability was calculated to confirm the reliability of
CRLQ, and the results are shown in <Table 7>.
Table 7: Reliability of CRLQ
Dimension Sub-factors Number of
items Cronbach’s ɑ
Rationalism
Rational estimate of
the situation 6 .836
.937 Strategic
predictions 7 .802
Logical problem-
solving 8 .923
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
16 www.globalbizresearch.org
Optimal
administrative
control
7 .889
Compassioism
Trust-based
empowerment 7 .864
.934
Empathic
consideration 5 .823
Tolerant humility 6 .795
Altruistic
cooperation 9 .891
Total 55 .959
The total reliability of CRLQ was very high at .959, and each dimension also showed high
reliability at .937 of rationalism paradigm and .934 of compassionism paradigm. Reliabilities
of the eight sub-factors were at a satisfactory level in the range of .795 ~ .923.
4.5 Definition of Structuring Factors
The definitions of sub-factors of rationalism and compassionism are described as seen in
<Table 8>, each of which implies of meaning of questions asking the level of rationalism or
compassionism.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
17 www.globalbizresearch.org
4.6 Final Measurement Scale of Comapassionate Rationalism Leadership
CRLQ IS composed of 2 latent variables, that is, Rationalism that is composed of 4
sub-variables which were rational contextual judgement, strategic prediction, logical
problem solving, and optimized control management, and Compassionism with 4 sub-
variables of trust-based empowerment, empathic consideration, embracing humility,
and altruistic collaboration. Also, the CRLQ is finalized with 55 items, which is
confirmed to be validated and reliable, as shown in Table 9.
Table 8: Definition of Structuring Factors of Compassionate Rationalism Leadership
dimension Sub-factors definition
Rationalism
Rational
estimate of the
situation
When a crucial decision making is necessary based on rational
thinking, I promptly determine the most efficient alternative
and direction to response the situation.
Strategic
predictions
I see the problem from a long-term perspective and make
elaborate predictions about uncertain future and set attainable
and strategic goals by select and concentration.
Logical
problem-solving
I analyze the situation faced and issues on work from various
angles in different ways and I reasonably determine the cause
and core of problems and come up with solutions for solving
problems after logically grasping the contextual meaning.
Optimal
administrative
control
By managing or maintaining various human/material resources
in best conditions, I maximize the efficiency and raise the
quality of performance.
Compassionism
Empower based
on trust
Based on truthful and trustful relationship with members,
providing members with various opportunities and proper
authority, I help them to feel a sense of accomplishment.
Empathic
consideration
I am much interested in other person’s emotions and I try to
grasp closely his state of mind and I consider his situation
putting myself in his shoes.
Tolerant
humility
Having reflective perspectives on my thoughts and behaviors I
am tolerant of critical feedback from others with modesty and I
listen to various opinions from others and accept it in a
positive manner.
Altruistic
cooperation
I take self-giving actions for others and willingly help members
providing what they need and lead them by example even if
there is no benefit to me.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
18 www.globalbizresearch.org
Table 9: Final Composition of CRLQ
dimension Leadership Sub-factors Question Numbers # of
Questions
Rationalism
Rational estimate of the
situation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 6
Strategic predictions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 7
Logical problem-solving 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21 8
Optimal administrative
control 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 7
Compassionism
Empower based on trust 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 7
Empathic consideration 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 5
Tolerant humility 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 6
Altruistic cooperation 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,
54, 55 9
5. Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement tool which can measure the adults'
CRL to ensure the validity of the measurement tool. For this research purpose, the factors that
make up the concepts of CRL were derived through previous researches and FGI. As a result,
259 preliminary items were developed according to these factors. On the basis of descriptive
statistics and EFA conducted on the pilot test data, 126 items were selected for the main survey.
The main survey was conducted online and offline among 738 adults. Any detectable
insincere responses were excluded and the data of 692 people were finally used in this analysis.
As the result of EFA, the eight-factor structure showed the highest interpretability, which had
four factors of rationalism paradigm dimension (logical problem-solving, optimal
administrative control, rational estimate of the situation, and strategic predictions) and four
factors of compassionate paradigm dimension (altruistic cooperation, trust-based
empowerment, tolerant humility, and empathic consideration). The eigenvalues of all eight
factor were above 1, and they showed cumulative explanation of about 59%. The final 55 items
were derived. The coefficient factor of which were more than .40. To confirm the factor
structure following the results of EFA, CFA was conducted by AMOS 18.0 on 292 data except
for the data used in EFA. As the results of analysis, fit indices of eight factor structure and
hierarchical model structure met the acceptance criteria, compared to base models (one factor
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
19 www.globalbizresearch.org
and two factors). Through considering fit indices comprehensively, the results of EFA could be
reconfirmed. In conclusion, the results of the first research question on constructs and items of
CRLQ were that constructs could be divided into two big dimensions (rationalism paradigm
and compassionate paradigm) with four sub-factors respectively and a total of 55 items. The
measuring tool was a Likert 5-point scale and was configured to self-evaluate, targeting adults.
As results of the second research question of reliability and validity on CRLQ, the total
reliability and reliabilities of sub-factors were all found to be at satisfactory levels, and validity
were also secured since EFA and CFA showed the fitness of CRL measuring model. This study
has the following significance: First, this study clearly defines the concept of CRL as a unified
one from two leadership points of view- rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm,
based on Choi (2011) and developed the measuring tool of CRL, which has a major
significance. Discrimination and convenience of measuring leadership were also tested by
ensuring that the appropriate number of items are used. Second, for the leaders playing pivotal
roles in organizations and institutions, CRLQ confirmed which dimensional leadership between
rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm showed strength or weakness by self-
evaluation. The respective sub-factors also provided a variety of specific information on their
own leadership. Third, this study could be utilized as the educational content that could increase
the effectiveness of leadership according to the different situations faced by leaders, and
orienting to the balance of two dimensions (rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm)
with sub-factors of CRL. Fourth, the development of CRLQ raised the validity of the research
methods by developing it in a parallel with the various methods of previous research study,
FGI, and survey. Finally, this study would have continuous expansion as a new field of research
in lifelong education and lifelong education leadership area and provide leading data as a
springboard for these studies, which are meaningful.
In accordance with the results, some suggestions were presented as follows: First, there
could still be limits on generalization even though this study included adults of different ages
as research subjects. Complementing the construct and measuring items through ongoing
validation study was needed for ensuring the reliability and validity as stable. There was also a
need for researches with demographic variables such as age, sex, and type of organization
(commercial/non-profit, corporation/public institutions, etc.). In the situation where
quantitative researches on CRL were nonexistent, subsequent studies should be done, which
could be compared to the results on different research subjects and contexts. Second, it was
expected that the development of systematic training and coaching programs that could help
leaders of organizations using CRLQ developed in this study would contribute to strengthen
practical lifelong education leadership competence. It was needed to carry out this measure to
leaders, explain how to utilize it on site, and help them with ongoing training and coaching
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
20 www.globalbizresearch.org
programs. In addition, future research is also needed concerning the effectiveness of the
program after conducting CRL training program.
References
Bandalos, D. L., 2002, The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in
structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78-102.
Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R., 1989, Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.
Cattell, R. B., 1996, The scree test for the number of factors. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 1(1), 245-
276.
Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R., 1989, Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.
Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.
Choi, E. S., 2011, Development of measurement scale for the leadership of compassionate rationalism in
lifelong. Andragogy Today, 14(3), 61-85.
Donadlson, 1992, Reconfiguring the leadership envelope: teaching and administration. In P. J. Edelson(Ed.),
Rethinking leadership in adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hogwood, B. W. and Gunn, L. A., 1984, Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press.
Mintzberg, H., 1990, The design school reconsidering the basic premises of strategic Management. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 171-195.
Niebuhr, R., 1988, Moral man and immoral society, (Byungsub Lee Trans.). Seoul: Modern Thought Co.
Raelin, J. A., 2003, Creating leaderful organizations. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koeler Publishers, Inc.
Zust, C. W., 2008, The compassionate leader. http://www.emergingleader.com/article19.shtml.
Zwillick, D., 2004, Solipsism, compassionism and freedom. International Journal of Humanities and Peace,
20(1). 51-55.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
21 www.globalbizresearch.org
CRLQ (Compassi0onate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire)
Number Question
1 I can make a prompt decision, in the face of uncertainties and insufficient information.
2 I deal with a dangerous situation with agility without embarrassment.
3 I take prompt action composedly when unexpected things happen.
4 I am careful in performing jobs, and besides I take bold action on the changes in the situation.
5 I don’t hesitate to decide what to do and put them in action.
6 I can make the best decision, in the situation when the standard is ambiguous and
reference data is insufficient.
7 After full consideration of current human and material resources, I set an attainable
goal within its circle.
8 I elaborately anticipate how interior and exterior circumstances would go and respond
to it.
9 I take a long-term view in everything I do.
10 I consider not only short term outcome but also future impact.
11 I always bear the possibility in mind that unexpected things could happen.
12 When I set medium and long-term goals, I make a plan considering a wide variety of
variables.
13 I make a decision examining thoroughly realistic possibility rather than seek ideal goals.
14 I come up with specific solutions through investigating the cause of a complex problem.
15 Grasping the current situation, I detect various influence factors and understand exactly the causal
relationships among them.
16 Analyzing a problem situation, I clarify the cause and predict obstacles ahead.
17 I can identify the cause of problems that happened more precisely than people around
me.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
22 www.globalbizresearch.org
18 I am good at getting the core of something and spotting problems easily overlooked.
19 I am good at finding out the causes of a difficult situation and the clues to solve a
difficult problem.
20 Faced with a complex problem, I find out key information.
21 I am good at grasping the core and context of a knotty problem and finding a solution.
22 To maximize work efficiency, I classify or integrate tasks.
23 I consider each member’s traits and assign to him a task where he can display all his
ability.
24 I increase work efficiency assigning proper resources to actual work.
25 I increase work efficiency using proper combinations of personnel and jobs, through the
whole process of doing work.
26 I check frequently internal/external maximum resources and personnel that are available
in actual work.
27 I properly assign members tasks and delegate authority to them that matches individual
capabilities.
28 I maximize work efficiency by allocating resources appropriately.
29 I help members to complete their tasks on their own
30 I grant proper autonomy and responsibility to the person in actual charge.
31 I am good at understanding private capabilities and traits of each member and
encourage him to achieve results on his own.
32 I give members autonomy in order that they can complete their work.
33 I establish clear lines of authority and responsibility where members can work
autonomously.
34 I actively provide members with opportunities to experience new tasks.
35 I help members to display their ability on their own and to feel a sense of
accomplishment.
36 I have a conversation with other person, reading his face and fully understanding his
emotions.
37 I grasp closely other person’s current situation and his state of mind.
Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6
Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752
23 www.globalbizresearch.org
38 I consider what impact my words and actions are going to have on others.
39 I consider other person’s situation, giving them work instructions.
40 I conduct myself, considering other person’s position rather than my position.
41 I understand and accept various working and behavior styles of people.
42 I don’t always think that my decisions and methods are right.
43 I always try to take some time to look back at myself or reflect on myself.
44 I humbly accept critical feedbacks on my values or actions.
45 I try to accept negative feedback from others positively.
46 I spend lots of time having a conversation with members to understand them more.
47 I work faithfully even if there is no strict monitoring or clear instruction.
48 In our organization, I take an active interest in solving member’s problems.
49 I fulfill my duties diligently without caring about what other people think of me.
50 I take the lead by doing what other people don’t like to do.
51 Finishing my jobs though, I willingly help others to complete their work.
52 I actively help a coworker who has work-related difficulties, not turning my back on him.
53 I willingly help my colleague in his work even if there is no benefit.
54 I gladly help my colleague when he faces the problem that is too hard for him to solve
alone.
55 I feel sorry for people in trouble and look for some way to help them.