journal of leadership & organizational studies-1997-anderson-119-43

8/13/2019 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies-1997-Anderson-119-43

1/26

http://jlo.sagepub.com/Organizational StudiesJournal of Leadership &

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/107179199700400212

1997 4: 119Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesJoe S. Anderson and Gregory E. Prussia

The Self-Leadership Questionnaire: Preliminary Assessment of Construct Validity

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 1997Version of Record>>

at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia on November 28, 2013jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia on November 28, 2013jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.midwestacademy.org/http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119.full.pdfhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.midwestacademy.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/119http://jlo.sagepub.com/


2/26

The Self-Leadership Questionnaire:

PreliminaryAssessment ofConstruct Validity

Joe S.Anderson

Northern Arizona University

Gregory E. PrussiaSeattle University

About theAuthors: Joe Anderson isAssistant Professor of Management at NorthernArizona

University. He received his doctorate fromArizona State Universitys Department of Managementin May, 1993. His research interests include stress and coping in organizations, strategic allianceformation in small businesses, and organizational privacy issues. Gregory Prussia isAssistantProfessor of Management at Seattle University. He received his Ph.D. fromArizona State

University in December, 1993. His current research interests include the causal relationshipbetween organizational structure and strategy, the antecedents and consequences of job loss,and group collective efficacy.

The authors acknowledge valuable suggestions by three anonymous reviewers of theAcademyof Management on an earlier version of this paper.

Executive Summary

As organizations approach the 21st Century, employee empowerment hasbecome an important concern in coping with current competitive demands.

Empowermentdemands non-traditional relationships between organizations andtheir employees.At the heart of empowerment lies employees ability to leadthemselves. However, as important as self-leadership skills are to the successof empowerment programs, no valid measure of self-leadership has beenavailable. Three studies are reported which contribute to the refinement and

preliminary validation of a measurement of self-leadership skills. Results,limitations, and a suggested research agenda contributing to practical benefitsare discussed.

at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia on November 28, 2013jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


3/26

120

Organizations are undergoing considerable change as attempts to respond todomestic and global competitive pressures focus attention on internalorganizational processes and efficiency. Current changes in organizations arewidespread and expected to continue well into the 21 st Century (Kozlowski,Chao, Smith, & Hedlund, 1993). All levels of organizations are in flux, andrecent prevalent downsizing has affected management to a greater extent than .ever

before (Byrne, 1993). Consequently,an

emphasison

employeeempowerment has emerged as an important feature of many organizationalrestructuring efforts (Alvesson & ~Imot, 1992; Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Empowerment of employees is a key foundationof self-managed workteams, participative management, and other attempts toextend quality concepts into organizations.At the heart of the movement towardempowerment of employees is a vision of new relationships between theorganization and its employees. Employees are now expected to be intelligentand active participants in their organizations (Aktouf, 1992; Block, 1993).Control in organizations is shifting from external, downward influence bymanagement on employees to a decentralization of power, and an opportunityfor workers at all levels to exercise increasing influence over themselves andtheir tasks (Shipper & Manz, 1992, p. 48).

Recognition is growing that in empowering organizations, managers will need torely more on internal employee self-leadership, rather than on external

leadership as it has been traditionally applied. For example, self-leadership isconsidered pivotal to employees enthusiasm, commitment, and performance in

empowering organizations (Manz, 1986, 1990). In addition, positive self-leadership is argued to contribute to improved performance for both individualsand their organizations (Manz, 1992b). Several authors argue that employeeempowerment and the related issue of employee self-leadership are expectedto be recurring themes in organizational restructuring, and thus will continue tobe of concern to practicing managers well into the 21 st Century (Alvesson &Wilmot, 1992; Manz, 1992a).

However, while anecdotal evidence of the effects of employee self-leadershipon other organizational variables is common and has strong intuitive appeal,there has been little empirical examination of self-leadership skills and theirrelation to performance or other important related outcomes in organizations (Cf.Neck & Manz, 1994; Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1997). A clearerunderstanding of the process of self-leadership is needed in order to facilitate

empowermentof

employees by organizations restructuringfor survival in the

new century.

To provide research which can substantiate the theoretical grounding andintuitive appeal of the concept of self-leadership, and further can provide valuein practical use, the first step must be validation of a measurement instrument.This study focuses on the measurement of self-leadership skills. Heretoforethere has been no valid measure of self-leadership. It is our purpose, therefore,to present the preliminary development of a survey to measure self-leadershipbehaviors and perceptions in individuals. Conceptual foundations of self-



4/26

121

leadership theory are now presented, followed by content validation results(Study 1) and further construct validation (Study 2 and Study 3).

Self-Leadership Theory

Self-leadership involves the influence people exert over themselves to achieve

the self-motivation and self-direction needed to behave in desirable ways (Manz,1992b). Particular behaviors and thought processes characterize self-leadershipand are hypothesized to influence subsequent outcomes positively. Specifically,three distinct but complementary categories of self-leadership have beenhypothesized: behavior focused strategies; natural reward strategies; andconstructive thought pattern strategies.

Behavior focused self-leadership strategies refer to specific behaviors that focuson self-assessment, self reward, and self-discipline. These behaviors are aimed

- at managing behavior in difficulty, necessary, but perhaps unpleasant tasks. Five- primary constellations of behavioral strategies contribute to enhanced self-

leadership: self-observation; self-goal setting; self-reward; self-punishment; and. rehearsal. Overall, the foundation for these strategies is a focus on self-

awareness, an understanding of why we behave in desirable or undesirable

ways, and using strategies to manage this process (Manz, 1992b). Using these&dquo;

behavior focused strategies is argued to promote and encourage successful;;

. behaviors and suppress unsuccessful behaviors.

Natural reward strategies of self-leadership focus on positive perceptions andexperiences of tasks to be accomplished. This includes commitment to, beliefin, and enjoyment of the work for its own value (Manz, 1992a, 1992b). Natural

.. reward strategies include seeking work activities which are pleasant and. enjoyable. Further, perceptions or behaviors relating to existing tasks can be

. modified in order to increase perceived competence, self-control, or taskresponsibility. In general, strategies in this category include increasing focus onthe pleasant rather than the unpleasant aspects of work.

Constructive thought pattern strategies focus on establishing and altering. thought patterns in desirable ways. Four particular strategies can be used to

change thinking patterns and enhance self-leadership: self-analysis and. improvement of belief systems; mental imagery focused on positive

performance; positive self-talk to motivate and facilitate performance; and useof

positive scriptsin

placeof ineffective ones. Manz

(1986)asserts that

behavioral and psychological scripts are the individual counterparts to. organizational rules, policies, and operating procedures.

. The construct of self-leadership extends beyond the frequently used term &dquo;self-.. management.&dquo; Theorists propose that though self-leadership shares some

similar components with self-management, self-management tends to focus.&dquo;.. primarily on behaviors to reduce discrepancies from often externally imposed

..... standards (Manz, 1992b). While self-management is usually used in referenceto self-discipline oriented activities related to accomplishing necessary but notusually motivating behaviors (cf. Latham & Frayne, 1989), self-leadership is a

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


5/26

122

more global concept which also incorporates additional cognitive and intrinsicmotivational aspects.

Further, self-leadership is distinct from the concept of employee empowerment.Empowerment has been described as &dquo;pushing decision-making down to thelowest level&dquo; in organizations (Roberts, 1994, p. 311). Another view of

empowerment describes it in terms of providing employees with the FourAs: 1)authority, delegated to the employees to make decisions; 2) accountability,accepted by the employees for their actions and results of their decisions; 3)alignment of employee direction, meaning a shared vision with the organization;and 4) ableness, or development of the employees skills over time (Brower,1994).A third perspective on empowerment includes management efforts to&dquo;enable; it means to help people develop a sense of self-efficacy... to energizepeople to take action&dquo; (Whetten & Cameron, 1995, p. 483). In each of thesecases, empowerment is the provision of opportunities externally bymanagement, in effect providing an environment in which employees canexercise their self-leadership skills and perceptions. The issue of self-efficacy

.

provides a good example. While empowerment means helping people developa sense of self-efficacy, previous research demonstrated through sophisticatedstructural equation modeling techniques, that self-efficacy and self-leadershipare separate and distinct constructs (Prussia,Anderson, & Manz, 1997).

. In sum, individuals use of behavioral, cognitive, and perceptual self-leadership.

skills is theorized to build perceptions of control and responsibility which are vital. to employees performance in empowering organizations. For this reason, we

examine the measurement of self-leadership skills in this study. We

acknowledge the complexity of developing valid measures (cf. Kinicki & Latack,

1990),and

recognizethat our

approachin these

early stagesmust be

considered preliminary. However, we have built upon multiple sources of existingtheory to develop our instrument, and any further pursuit of empirical researchin this important topic area depends to a great degree on inchoate steps suchas we take here. For example, a valid scale for measuring self-leadership skillsis needed as an indicator of employee readiness for empowerment interventionsin organizations, and further as a measure of the effectiveness of thoseinterventions after they have been implemented. The content validity of the Self-Leadership Questionnaire is assessed in Study 1. Study 2 examines the scalefurther for a large sample, evaluating the scales psychometric propertiesthrough factor analysis. Study 3 tests the scale with a second sample, further

evaluating its psychometric properties by examining reliability estimates andintercorrelations between sub-scales.

. ,.I:; Study 1

Content validity is an important component of construct validity (Schwab, 1980).Content validation assesses whether the items in a measurement instrument

adequately represent the performance domain or construct of specific interest(Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 218). Further, the instrument must not contain itemsmeasuring extraneous constructs to qualify as content valid (AmericanPsychologicalAssociation, 1985; Cook& Campbell, 1979). Developers of

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


6/26

123

measurement instruments are cautionea against concluding that scales arecontent valid simply because they have been constructed to conform to thetheoretical construct.

In content validation, a typical procedure is to have a panel of independentjudges determine whether instrument items adequately sample the domain of

interest. Judges are either subject matter experts or are supplied with cleardescriptions of each item and of the theoretical domains into which the itemsmay be assigned. The judges are instructed to proceed systematically throughthe instrument, matching each individual item to a list of objectives (Crocker &

Algina, 1986, p. 219). They progress through the instrument, just as surveyrespondents would, but classify the items into their theoretical domains ratherthan simply answering each individual question. Items assigned into predictedcategories indicate that the items assess the specified domain. Items assignedto other than the theoretically specified categories demonstrate that the itemsassess extraneous content or are not independent (American Psychological

Association, 1985).

Study 1 uses the recommended approach of having independent judgesdetermine the content validity of the prototype instrument, the Self-LeadershipQuestionnaire (SLQ). The prototype was generated by C. Manz and H. Simsfrom the theoretical and experiential literature on self-leadership skills (e.g.,Manz, 1983, 1986, 1992b; Manz & Sims, 1991). The initial SLQ contained 90items, designed to tap the three theoretical dimensions of Self-Leadership. Eachitem was intended to represent one of the dimensions of self-leadership:behavioral focused strategies; natural reward strategies; and constructive

thought pattern strategies.

Method

Sample and Procedure .

The prototype SLQ and an introductory manual were distributed to 18 judges ata large southwestern university. The judges included 5 faculty members in theManagementArea of the College of Business and 13 graduate students in the

. College who were enrolled in a graduate Organizational Behavior andOrganization Theory course. Judges volunteered to participate in the validationexercise, in response to a memo which briefly introduced the research projectand the topic of self-leadership.

The respondents were asked to read a six-page &dquo;training manual&dquo; (available byrequest from the authors) which gave the instructions for the exercise and

presented the dimensions of self-leadership theory. Two descriptions of self-leadership theory were included in the training manual: 1)An initial overview ofthe self-leadership construct adapted from recent work by Prussia,Anderson,and Manz (1994); and 2) a more detailed introduction to self-leadership theoryadapted from a recent self-leadership article by Manz (1992b). On completionof their reading, and prior to responding to the questionnaire, respondents wereasked whether

theyhad read the

introductorymaterial and whether they had

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


7/26


8/26


9/26

126 The Jou rnal of Leadership Studies



10/26

127The Self-Leadership Questionnaire



11/26

128

When item assignments were compared between faculty judges and graduatestudent judges, a high degree of agreement was found between the two groups.Overall, for the 90 items of the prototype SLQ, the groups agreed on 67% of thecategorizations. For the 50 item refined SLQ, faculty and student groups ofjudges agreed on 94% of item assignments. These results suggest initialsupport for the content validity of the 50 items representing the behavioral focus,natural reward, and creating constructive thought pattern dimensions of theSLQ. The 40 items of the prototype SLQ which did not meet the 60% criterionfor item assignment by the judges were deleted from the SLQ and were not usedwhen we proceeded with Study 2.

.

Study 2

The primary objective of Study 2 was to extend our investigation of SLQconstruct validity by collecting data from a sample of respondents to factoranalyze the items in the refined SLQ. Further, our intent was to compare thefactor analytically derived subscales of the SLQ to the theoretical componentsof the

three main categories of self-leadership (cf. Schwab, 1980). The issue forconstruct validity is whether the constructs which have been empiricallyidentified through factor analysis correspond to the theoretical constructsintended by the instrument developers. If items representing one theoreticallyspecified dimension or sub-dimension cluster together, for example, this fits theinstrument developers expectation in properly representing the construct. If,however, several items that appear to measure the same thing clustered ondifferent factors (or items apparently measuring very different things clusteredtogether on the same factor), this might raise questions about the validity of theconstruct measured by this collection of items (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 232).Study 2 compares the empirically derived factors of self-leadership with the

theoretical components of the three main categories of self-leadership presentedearlier.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample was composed of 194 students attending a junior-level introductorymanagement course at another large university in the southwest. Mean age forthe sample was 22.7 years, 80% were white, and 45% were female. Studentsvolunteered for the research project in exchange for 1 % course credit to be

applied to their grades in the course. The student respondents were given apreliminary lecturette on the importance of research in a major university andtheir obligation to treat the project seriously in exchange for the extra coursecredit. Further, respondents received instructions for answering the SLQ survey,and were given up to one hour to complete the exercise. All respondentscompleted the survey well within the allotted time.

Respondents were given the refined SLQ containing 50 items, and questionsassessing demographic variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity. They wereinstructed to read each of the SLQ items carefully and &dquo;try to decide how true

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


12/26

129

the statement is in describing you.&dquo; Respondents circled numbers on a fivepoint likert scale corresponding to their chosen answers: 1 = Not at allAccurate;2 = SomewhatAccurate; 3 =A LittleAccurate; 4 = MostlyAccurate; and 5 =

CompletelyAccurate.

Analysis

Of the 194 respondents who volunteered for the exercise, 189 returned useful,completed surveys used in this analysis. Factor analysis was used to evaluatefurther the extent to which the SLQ items assessed the theoretical constructs of

behavioral focused, natural reward focused, and constructive thought patternfocused self-leadership skills (Cf. Kinicki & Latack, 1990, p. 350). Exploratoryfactor analysis with principal components extraction and varimax rotation was

applied to the SLQ.A cut off point of .35 was chosen as the critical value fordeciding whether an item defined a factor. Further, the eigenvalue greater thanone test, and the scree test were also used to define factors (Gorsuch, 1974).

Table 2 presents the factor structure of the refined SLQ derived from factor

analysis, showing the factors and their component items, the factor loadings,scale reliabilities (coefficient alpha), and eigenvalues. Twelve initial factors werederived in this analysis, however examination of the substantive meanings of the

components dictated elimination of two factors (&dquo;Task Satisfaction&dquo; and &dquo;Not

Coherent&dquo;) due to the incoherence of the factor or items measuring inconsistentdimensions (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). In addition, both these factors showed poorinternal consistency estimates, with coefficient alphas (.56 and .54, respectively)far below the acceptable level for basic research (.70) suggested by Nunnally(1978). Items composing these two factors were deleted from further analyses.

)

.

Results and Discussion

On the basis of the analysis above, the data were represented by ten underlyingfactors. Behavioral focused strategies of self-leadership were represented by sixfactors; natural reward strategies were represented by one factor; andConstructive thought pattern strategies were represented by three factors. Referto table 3 for the factors representing the main categories of self-leadership.

Behavioral focused strategies of self-leadership were represented by six factors.Self Goal-Setting (factor 2) was composed of seven items (alpha = .85)specifically addressing issues of setting goals: mentally setting goals, writingdown goals, and thinking about personal goals for performance. Self-Reward(factor 4) was represented by three items (alpha = .91) directly focusing on selfreward behaviors for good performance.



13/26

130

01&

c0#

Iaa

r12

~q4)N

W mJm ~QH

(a

8.=1

15

~t-

01asLL

)1E

a

2:

It: ,.

on

Q

~-e$ai

Z0

CO

.%~

1u-

a

(~m

u

journal of leadership & organizational studies-1997-anderson-119-43

Documents