volume 0 issue 2010 [doi 10.1002%2fjls.20176] hyung joon yoon; ji hoon song; wesley e. donahue;...

7/28/2019 Volume 0 Issue 2010 [Doi 10.1002%2Fjls.20176] Hyung Joon Yoon; Ji Hoon Song; Wesley E. Donahue; Katheryn K.

1/12

39

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 4, Number 3, 2010

2010 University of Phoenix

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com DOI:10.1002/jls.20176

This article reports psychometric evaluation of the Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory

(LCI). The 32-item LCI was validated on a sample of 323 managers in the health care industry. Pre-

liminary validity and reliability evidence of the LCI was established through exploratory factor anal-

ysis (EFA), item-total correlations, Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). The four-factor leadership competency scale, comprising supervisory and managerial com-

petencies, organizational leadership, personal mastery, and resource leadership, accounted for 58%

of variance. According to CFA results, the model fit of the four latent factors of the LCI was confirmed

to be appropriate. Cross-validation with other populations is needed to confirm the factor structure.Limitations and further research recommendations are discussed.

L E A D E R S H I P C O M P E T E N C Y

I N V E N T O R Y : A S Y S T E M A T I C

P R O C E S S O F D E V E L O P I N G

A N D VA L I D AT I N G A

L E A D E R S H I P C O M P E T E N C Y

S C A L E

HYUNG JOON YOON, JI HOON SONG, WESLEY E. DONAHUE,

AND KATHERYN K. WOODLEY


2/12

40 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES Volume 4 Number 3 DOI:10.1002/jls

leadership development is well documented, as is the

part they play in individual and group development

planning. Many illustrations of the development and

use of such instruments, primarily as competency-based,

360-degree feedback measures, are given in Carter,

Bennis, and Goldsmith (2000), specifically chapters 2,3, and 6.

Spenser and Spenser (1993) defined competencyas anunderlying characteristic of an individual that is causally

related to criterion-referenced effective and/or superior

performance in a job or situation (p. 9). Identifying

the competencies required for effectiveness at different

leadership levels is a key element in deciding how

to prepare individuals to function at each level and to

progress from level to level (Charan, Drotter, & Noel,

2001). Given the key role that competency identifica-

tion and development plays in performance improve-

ment, it is not surprising that the study of competencies

is of increasing interest to the fields of human resource

development (HRD) and management and leadership

development (Bernthal et al., 2004; Dubois & Rothwell,

2004). According to Gilbert (1978), competency-based

behavior leads to worthy and valuable accomplishments

in the workplace. An advantage that competency-

based leadership development has over other approaches

is that it promotes dynamic interaction between

leaders and followers in the workplace (Dansereau,

Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Although leadership development scales are typically

developed by researchers, scales are also developed by

consultancy companies in training and personnel selec-

tion, the federal government, and HR practitioners

within specific organizations on their own. For example,

in Lentzs study (1993), 27 leadership assessment tools

were identified and analyzed to select the best scale

for the organization. On the basis of this study, Lentz

selected the Management Excellence Framework

(MEF), developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel

(OPM; Flanders & Utterback, 1985), and used this as

the basis for developing a new measure for his depart-

mental leadership model. More recently, Naquin and

Holton (2006) developed the Louisiana Managerial/

Supervisory Survey (LMSS), based on OPMs Leader-

ship Effectiveness Framework (LEF). The OPM lead-

ership models (MEF and LEF) were selected as the basis

for Penn States Leadership Competency Inventory

As Peter Drucker often mentioned, leaders in organi-

zations have known that if you cant measure it, you

cant manage it (Drucker & Garvin, 1998, p. 69). This

maxim, generally applied to management of organiza-

tional tasks and processes, can also be applied to how

one manages his or her leadership development. Manyorganizations use assessments of various types to iden-

tify the leadership competencies or skill sets that cur-

rent or potential leaders should possess (Rodriguez,

Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). Through

measurement of leadership competencies, organizations

also gain data useful in selecting persons for leadership

roles and in formulating leadership development plans

and programs.

The literature in the domain of leadership research is

replete with studies of the development, use, and vali-

dation of a large number of psychometric instruments

to measure leadership practices and potential. Given the

range of leadership theories, it is not surprising to find

numerous instruments designed to measure aspects of

capacity, attitude, personality, behavior, and situational

fit. Some assessments are rooted in competency models

while others have their roots in the dimensions of the un-

derlying theory. Some of the behavioral and competency-

based instruments assess only self-perception (self-report

of behavior), while others add feedback from direct re-

ports, peers, supervisors, and customers. The primary

practical use of such behavioral or competency-based

instruments is for increased self-awareness and subse-

quent leadership development.

Instruments to assess an individuals leadership style

owe much of their development to the behavioral stud-

ies conducted in the 1950s, when dimensions of task

and structure and consideration and support were

examined (e.g., Stogdill & Coons, 1957; Tannenbaum &

Schmidt, 1958). Instruments of more current vintage

that have been extensively researched include the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio,

1990) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner &

Kouzes, 1988, 1993). There are a variety of instruments

designed for multisource feedback on various leader-

ship characteristics and behaviors. A description of the

key features of some of the more popular tools can be

found in Morical (1999), Eichinger and Lombardo

(2003), and Leslie and Fleenor (1998). The use of psy-

chometric instruments as part of needs assessment for


3/12


4/12


driven, and business acumen. The additional competen-cies were continual learning,political savvy,partnering,and entrepreneurship (OPM, 2007).

THE SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000

The SCANS Report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992)

was intended to help employers ensure that their em-

ployees are equipped with up-to-date, appropriate skills

as well as to assist educators in developing the skills that

students would require for successful performance in

the modern workplace (SCANS, 1992). The developers

of the LCI added selected competencies from the

SCANS report to the LEF competencies, to permit as-

sessment of a broader base of competencies.

There are two large domains in the SCANS report:

competenciesandfoundational skills. There are five cate-gories included within the competencies domain: re-sources, information, interpersonal, systems, and technology.Within the foundational skills domain, three categories

are identified: basic skills, thinking skills, andpersonal qual-ities. Each categories has three to six subitems; for exam-ple, the resources category has the subitems allocates time,allocates money, allocates material and facility resources, andallocates human resources. The personal qualities categoryincludes responsibility, self-esteem, social, self-management,and integrity/honesty(SCANS, 1992).

Development Process of the

Leadership Competency Inventory

The LCI was developed by three experts in leadership

development, Wesley Donahue, Katheryn Woodley, and

John Park. They hold Ph.D.s in workforce education,

organizational psychology, and adult education, respec-

tively, and each has more than 20 years of leadership

training experience for both public and private sector

organizations. This team elected to integrate the 1992

versions of the LEF and the SCANS report. Rather than

use the competency categories defined for the 1998 LEF,the experts chose to define categories following the inte-

gration process. Including the SCANS report was con-

sidered essential to using the LCI with populations of

individuals not yet in formal managerial positions.

The process of integration was as follows:

Step 1. The nomenclature and behavioral descrip-tions of the 22 LEF competencies were modified

using an expert review process. For example, clientorientation became customer focus, and the behav-ioral description was changed from anticipates and

meets the needs of clients; achieves quality end-

products; is committed to improving services

(OPM, 2007, p. 244) to actively seeks customerinput; ensures that customer needs are met; con-

tinuously seeks to improve the quality of services,

products, and processes (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3).

Step 2. The experts reviewed the SCANS report andidentified additional, necessary skills from the items

under each category of the SCANS report. To en-

sure consistency with the modified 22 items of the

LCI, some of the items from the SCANS report

were consolidated into one competency. For exam-

ple, uses computers to process information, reading,writing, speaking, listening, arithmetic, and mathe-maticswas modified to computer and basic literacyand defined as proficient in using personal com-

puter and learning new software; reads, writes, and

performs mathematical operations; speaks and lis-

tens with comprehension. This process resulted in

eight competencies: computer and basic literacy, con-ceptual thinking, learning and information, resourceusage, understanding systems, interpersonal relation-ship building, self responsibility and management, and

resource management.Step 3. After reviewing the results of the LEF studyconducted in 1998 (OPM, 2007), the experts iden-

tified two additional competencies for the LCI:

strategic thinkingand leading change. This broughtthe total number of competencies to 32. Including

leading changeas a competency was a variation fromthe OPM model, which used it as a category. In the

LCI, it was defined as leads organizational trans-

formation and change efforts; champions organi-

zational change (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3).

Step 4. Through an iterative process, the developersused their judgment to place the 32 items into a five-

category model:personal mastery, managing processes,managing resources, leadership, and managing relation-ships. This proved a very workable and understand-able model, but it had not been subjected to validation

research. This step was seen as important to confirm-

ing the value of the LCI for diverse industries.


5/12

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES Volume 4 Number 3 DOI:10.1002/jls 43

The LCI also has four open-ended questions (related to

other important competencies, prior training and devel-

opment experience, job responsibilities, and current

organizational challenges).The present study did not an-

alyze responses to the four open-ended questions. Respon-

dents indicate the degree ofimportanceand developmentneedfor each of the 32 competency items by using a five-point Likert scale. Results are reported at the group, rather

than individual, level and include feedback on individual

competencies as well as competency clusters.

PROCEDURE

The LCI is administered to members of client organiza-

tions by a PSUCaPE faculty-administrator team using

LCI packets. Typically, the packets include administra-

tion instructions, 20 forms for individuals (I) and 5

forms for managers (M). The process includes several

steps, from confirming that the LCI would be appro-

priate for the client, through pre- and postadministra-

tion meetings with the faculty-administrator team,

processing the results, and producing summary reports

(PSUCaPE, 2007). As part of their preparation for

using the LCI, people expected to be involved in LCI

administration were trained by three experienced PSU-

CaPE faculty members, including two of the three LCI

developers. The 323 cases used for the current validation

study were drawn from LCIs that were administered

following the prescribed process by individuals trained

in the use of the LCI.

DATA ANALYSIS

The decision was made to use the development needdatafor the current research. Exploratory factor analysis

(EFA) was implemented using SPSS 17.0. Principal axis

factoring followed by promax rotation was used because

promax rotation is generally conducted when the factors

might be correlated (Stevens, 2002). The eigenvalue cri-

terion (Kaiser, 1960) was used to determine the number

of factors.

To test reliabilit y, Cronbachs alpha coefficient

(Cronbach, 1951) was used. Cronbachs alpha measure

of internal consistency determines the degree to which each

item measures a latent factor or construct (Crocker &

Algina, 1986). The coefficient of items for each factor

and the overall scale was examined. In addition to the

internal consistency reliability test, the impact of each

Step 5. The LCI was reviewed by three additional,highly experienced PSUCaPE faculty members,

and they were in agreement about the soundness

of the LCI competencies and the five-category

model.

Step 6. The tool was pilot-tested with a sample ofclients to confirm its soundness. Their feedback led to

minor changes in wording of the competencies and

definitions to ensure understandability, clarity,

and appropriateness.

Validation Method

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 323 individuals from 11 health carerelatedorganizations were drawn from a larger dataset, because

this population exclusively satisfied the minimum num-

ber required for factor analyses. The individuals were

supervisors or managers. Nine of the organizations

were hospitals, which, according to the North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS; Office of Man-

agement and Budget, 2007), are under the health careand social assistanceindustry. The other two organiza-tions were nursing homes, which, although classified

by NAICS under the real estate and rental and leasing

category, were considered health care organizations forpurposes of this study. In terms of organizational sizes,

42 (13.0%), 41 (12.7%), 48 (14.9%), and 192 (59.4%)

people came from organizations with 1100, 101500,

5011,000, and 1,0015,000 employees, respectively.

The data did not include gender, age, or ethnic back-

ground information because it was not relevant to the

initial purpose of the LCI administration and was not

collected at the point of administration.

INSTRUMENT

The LCI has two parallel forms: Form I (individual) for

members of the group for whom the assessment is tar-

geted, and Form M (manager) for people who super-

vise members of the target population. This study used

the data obtained via Form I. In completing the LCI, re-

spondents indicate the degree of perceived importance of

each of the 32 competencies to job performance and the

degree of their need for development in that competency.


6/12


item on the reliability of the corresponding factor and

the whole scale was evaluated. The corrected item-total

correlation for each item in LCI was calculated. A low

item-total correlation explains that a specific item is less

relevant to the factor or the overall scale and would re-

duce the reliability of the scale (Nunnally, 1978).Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed

using Lisrel 8.80 to assess the model fit. CFA is the most

appropriate approach to measure the internal structure

of the relations between proposed latent variables and

observed measurement items (Hair, Black, Babin,

Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The primary purpose of

the CFA is to identify how well measured variables rep-

resent the proposed factors on the basis of collected data

(Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004). To deter-

mine the soundness of the model fit, factor loadings

and t-values were examined. In addition, five model-fitindices were considered to examine the psychometric

properties between the proposed factor structure and

the collected data in terms of model-data fit: 2 (chi-

square), RMSEA (root mean square error of approxi-

mation), GFI (goodness of fit index), NNFI

(non-normed fit index), CFI (comparative fit index),

and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual).

Results and Discussions

DETERMINATION OF UNDERLYING

CONSTRUCTS THROUGH EXPLORATORY

FACTOR ANALYSIS

From the EFA, a four-factor structure was identified;

the solution accounts for 58% of the variance. After

considering the characteristics of the items under each

factor, the four identified factors were named as super-

visory/managerial (SM) competencies, organizational

leadership (OL), personal mastery (PM), and resource

leadership (RL). Table 1 shows the factor loadings for

each factor using the descriptive labels from the LCI.In general, factor loadings of 0.40 or greater are used

as a criterion for including an item in a certain factor. All

items were larger than 0.40 except for the managing di-verse workforceitem under the supervisory/ managerialcompetenciesfactor. However, the managing diverse work-forceitem could be included in the supervisory/manage-rial competenciesbecause the factor loading is 0.38, whichis very close to 0.40. Using this approach, SM consisted

of 12 competencies: teamwork and cooperation,flexibilityand resilience, decisiveness,problem solving, self-direction,customer focus, leadership and coaching, influencing andnegotiating, interpersonal relationship building, conflictmanagement, management controls, and managing diverse

workforce. OL included nine: strategic thinking and plan-ning, leading change,planning and evaluation, vision, ex-ternal awareness, technology management, humanperformance management,financial management andbudgeting, and creative thinking. PM consists of seven:oral communications, written communications, conceptualthinking, interpersonal competence, learning and informa-tion, self-responsibility and management, and understandssystems. Lastly, RL included four: technical competence, re-source management, computer and basic literacy, andresource usage.

The four identified factors are reflective of some prior

studies. The competencies of the MEF were grouped

into three leadership hierarchies: supervisors, managers,

and executives (Flanders & Utterback, 1985). SM and

OL may reflect the conception of the MEF, even though

the present study did not separate results for managers

and supervisors. Items under the PM factor were simi-

lar to items under thefoundation skillsdomain in theSCANS report (SCANS, 1992). PSUCaPE (2007) also

had thepersonal masterycategory, which was determinedby the developers of the LCI. For the RL, the SCANS

report also had resourcesand technologycategories(SCANS, 1992), and PSUCaPE (2007) had the man-aging resourcescategory. These findings may suggest thatcategories of leadership competencies can be adjusted

according to target populations.

RELIABILITY TEST

Table 2 shows the summary of results from Cronbachs

alpha coefficient test and corrected item-total correlations.

Cronbachs alpha coefficients for each factor ranged

from 0.776 to 0.924. The coefficient for the overall scalewas 0.955. This gives confidence that the reliability for

newly defined factors and the overall scale are accept-

able (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). The corrected item-total

correlations for each item in the LCI ranged from 0.435

to 0.735. An item-total correlation of 0.3 or less is often

used for determining the cut-off point (Wong, Chan, &

Lau, 2008). Therefore, the results of the corrected item-

total correlation were also found to be acceptable.


7/12

Table 1. Promax Rotated Factor Matrix Showing Factor Loadings for the 32 LCI Competencies

Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4:

Supervisory/Managerial Organizational Personal Resource

Variable Competencies Leadership Mastery Management

Teamwork and cooperation (20) 0.800 0.035 0.018 0.084

Flexibility and resilience (13) 0.798 0.090 0.108 0.065

Decisiveness (15) 0.718 0.027 0.055 0.128

Problem solving (14) 0.680 0 078 0 015 0.203

Self-direction (16) 0.661 0.182 0 080 0.036

Customer focus (24) 0.652 0.007 0.153 0.078

Leadership and coaching (12) 0.646 0.016 0.054 0.157

Influencing and negotiating (21) 0.627 0.267 0.029 0.115

Interpersonal relationship building (11) 0.547 0.058 0.228 0.258

Conflict management (19) 0.466 0.028 0.390 0.054

Management controls (25) 0.448 0.232 0.004 0.133

Managing diverse workforce (18) 0.379 0.192 0.064 0.172

Strategic thinking and planning (31) 0.068 0.796 0.090 0.058

Leading change (32) 0.040 0.710 0.191 0.174

Planning and evaluation (23) 0.179 0.648 0.165 0.144

Vision (29) 0.186 0.616 0.113 0.240

External awareness (30) 0.198 0.586 0.135 0.450

Technology management (27) 0.214 0.558 0.099 0.128

Human performance management (22) 0.135 0.548 0.056 0.050

Financial management and budgeting (26) 0.080 0.497 0.221 0.033

Creative thinking (28) 0.283 0.491 0.044 0.002

Oral communications (9) 0.133 0.160 0.735 0.000

Written communications (10) 0.019 0.113 0.682 0.041

Conceptual thinking (2) 0.072 0.124 0.601 0.194

Interpersonal competence (5) 0.284 0.121 0.527 0.092

Learning and information (3) 0.126 0.133 0.511 0.366

Self-responsibility and management (4) 0.096 0.064 0.503 0.322

Understands systems (8) 0.289 0.146 0.460 0.214

Technical competence (6) 0.027 0.037 0.94 0.618

Resource management (17) 0.095 0.013 0.202 0.550

Computer and basic literacy (1) 0.301 0.047 0.040 0.533

Resource usage (7) 0.080 0.063 0.274 0.443

Eigenvalues 13.589 2.238 1.685 1.214

Percentage of variance 42.467 6.994 5.264 3.794

Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number. Factor loadings greater than 0.40 are shown in boldface.


8/12

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations With Subscales and Total Scale

Corrected Item-Total

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Variable M SD Correlation (in a Subscale) (in the Main Scale)

Interpersonal relationship building (11) 2.684 1.228 0.661 0.677

Leadership and coaching (12) 2.988 1.131 0.691 0.653

Flexibility and resilience (13) 2.777 1.211 0.659 0.603

Problem solving (14) 2.746 1.122 0.735 0.722

Decisiveness (15) 2.820 1.158 0.705 0.667

Self-direction (16) 2.641 1.203 0.686 0.677

Managing diverse workforce (18) 2.514 1.183 0.625 0.663

Conflict management (19) 3.127 1.192 0.588 0.546

Teamwork and cooperation (20) 2.786 1.251 0.752 0.704

Influencing and negotiating (21) 2.873 1.095 0.681 0.670

Customer focus (24) 2.762 1.267 0.714 0.696

Management controls (25) 2.588 1.159 0.658 0.682

Supervisory/Managerial Competencies(Cronbachs a 0.924)

Human performance management (22) 2.882 1.213 0.613 0.600

Planning and evaluation (23) 2.972 1.082 0.705 0.627

Financial management and budgeting (26) 3.152 1.367 0.503 0.375

Technology management (27) 2.873 1.100 0.615 0.615

Creative thinking (28) 2.842 1.157 0.646 0.616

Vision (29) 2.916 1.082 0.640 0.624

External awareness (30) 2.972 1.093 0.710 0.583

Strategic thinking and planning (31) 2.960 1.180 0.689 0.614

Leading change (32) 2.997 1.160 0.540 0.468

Organizational Leadership (Cronbachs a 0.880)

Conceptual thinking (2) 2.433 1.202 0.713 0.663

Learning and information (3) 2.443 1.273 0.676 0.650

Self-responsibility and management (4) 2.963 1.192 0.652 0.592

Interpersonal competence (5) 2.632 1.220 0.685 0.645

Understands systems (8) 2.718 1.085 0.658 0.583

Oral communications (9) 2.786 1.019 0.689 0.661

Written communications (10) 2.746 1.059 0.660 0.650

Personal Mastery(Cronbachs a 0.885)

Computer and basic literacy (1) 2.793 1.144 0.510 0.435

Technical competence (6) 2.613 1.129 0.617 0.545

Resource usage (7) 2.762 1.129 0.597 0.644

Resource management (17) 2.690 1.122 0.595 0.635

Resource Leadership (Cronbachs a 0.776)

Leadership Competency(Cronbachs a 0.955)

Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number.


9/12


According to the results of the higher-order CFA

analysis, chi-square estimates were repeatedly statisti-

cally significant (2 [460] 1162.00; 2/df 2.52;p 0.001), because of the sensitivity of the chi-squareto the large sample size (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen,

2008). Additional indices provide statistically accept-able model-fit estimates (GFI 0.82; CFI 0.97;

NNFI 0.97), and the small magnitude of error term

estimates also supports the factor structure of the pro-

posed measurement model being well defined

(RMSEA 0.069; SRMR 0.058).

According to the two separate CFA results, the model

fit of the four latent factors of leadership competency

inventory with the 32 items was confirmed to be ap-

propriate, which indicates that the factor structure

model of the proposed measurement scales is valid.

Conclusions and Recommendations

for Future Research

The results show the LCI to possess sound reliability and

validity for the population of health care supervisors

and managers studied. Beyond its efficacy with health

care populations, the LCI was designed to be used with

any private and public sector organization, even though

it is based on research originally conducted on federal

government populations. According to Thach and

Thompson (2007), In general, the literature suggests

that there is a set of common leadership competencies

that are appropriate for any type of organization,

whether it be for-profit, non-profit, or governmental

(p. 360). Donahue (1996) confirmed that the OPM

model is applicable to private industry with a modifica-

tion. OPM also ensured that their leadership compe-

tencies are relevant to models outside of the government

(Rodriguez et al., 2002). Thus, there is a possibility that

the LCI can be useful with a variety of organization

types.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

According to the theoretical properties of the LCI and

the results of the exploratory analyses, four latent factors

were defined to measure leadership competency areas.

As a next step, two stages of CFA analysis were per-

formed. First, higher-order CFA uses the four latent fac-

tors that are identified as subfactors of overall leadership

competency. General CFA processes then use the 32

items that measure each of the proposed latent factors.

Factor loadings were examined, and the results of the

general CFA show that all factor loadings were statisti-

cally acceptable (factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to

0.77; t-values ranged from 8.90 to 14.00). Table 3 showsthe soundness of the model-fit in relation to the data set.

According to the results, general model-fit estimates

were statistically acceptable in terms of well-defined

model-data fit. Approximately 82% of variances and

covariances of the proposed measurement model could

be explained by the collected datasets (GFI 0.82).

Furthermore, two indices of error term detections sup-

port a small magnitude of the residuals of the

proposed measurement model (RMSEA 0.068 and

SRMR 0.055). The chi-square estimates were statis-

tically significant, which indicates lack of appropriate

fit between proposed measurement model and collected

datasets. However, using the chi-square test of model

fit for this research may not be appropriate, because a

fairly large sample size was used (n 323) in this re-search (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). In addi-

tion, several model fit indices confirmed a statistically

acceptable fit of data to the factor structure of the pro-

posed measurement model.

Moreover, a higher-order CFA analysis was conducted

to ensure unidimensionality of the leadership compe-

tency inventory, based on the rationale that the four

proposed latent factors are measuring general leader-

ship competencies (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). All

standardized factor loadings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 3. Single-Order CFA Results

Model df 2 2/df GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

4 domains 458 1134.89** 4.47 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.068 0.055

Note: ** 0.01.


10/12


data is desirable, as a means of cross-validating the LCIs

factor structure. Finally, it may be worthwhile to reassess

and update the competencies by reflecting on the most

recent changes in society and the workplace. From a

broader perspective, researchers and practitioners should

conduct development and validation research on their

own unique contexts because organizational culture and

needs vary widely from organization to organization.

References

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership de-

velopment: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J., Rothwell,

W. J., & Wellins, R. (2004).Mapping the future: New workplace

learning and performance competencies. Alexandria, VA: American

Society for Training and Development.

There remains a need for continued research into the

LCI, including further validation and updating. The

current study was limited to the health care industry

and so the four LCI factors have been validated only

for this population. In addition, only the developmentneedsdata were used for this study. If the importancedatawere used, the factor structure might well turn outdifferently. Moreover, the fact that two foundational

studies upon which the LCI was based were conducted

in 1992 could raise a time-related validity argument,

even though the competencies are reviewed by experts

with contemporary perspectives.

Three directions for future research are suggested.

First, further validation research is necessary to deter-

mine whether the four defined factors are valid for other

major industries such as manufacturing and public serv-

ice. Second, a validation study using the importance

Leadershipcompetencies

Supervisory/managerial

0.93

0.71 0.66 0.77 0.55

0.67

0.75

0.74

0.74

0.68

0.73

0.70

0.75

0.72

0.74

0.51

0.68

0.72

0.71

0.75

0.76

0.55

sm1 ol1 pm1 rl1

rl2

rl3

rl4

pm2

pm3

pm4

pm5

pm6

pm7

ol2

ol3

ol4

ol5

ol6

ol7

ol8

ol9

sm2

sm3

sm4

sm5

sm6

sm7

sm8

sm9

sm10

sm11

sm12

0.71

0.68

0.77

0.74

0.73

0.67

0.60

0.77

0.71

0.74

0.70

0.78 0.90 0.87

Organizationalleadership

Personalmastery

Resourceleadership

Figure 1. Standardized Factor Loading Estimates of a Higher Order CFA

Note: T-Value estimates of all standardized factor-loading estimates range from 8.36

to 13.82.


11/12


Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in

the development and evaluation of personality scales.Journal of Per-

sonality, 54, 106148.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL,

PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and program-

ming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carter, L., Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Linkage Inc.s best

practices in leadership development handbook: Case studies, instru-

ments, training(1st ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and mod-

ern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of

tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentalitytheory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predict-

ing the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184200.

Donahue, W. E. (1996). A descriptive analysis of the perceived im-

portance of leadership competencies to practicing electrical engineers in

Central Pennsylvania. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (UMI No. 9702284)

Drucker, P. F., & Garvin, D. A. (1998). Harvard business review on

knowledge management. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Dubois, D. D., & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Competency-based human

resource management. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2003). Knowledge sum-

mary series: 360-degree assessment. Human Resource Planning,

26(4), 3444.

Flanders, L. R., & Utterback, D. (1985). The management excel-

lence inventory: A tool for management development. Public Ad-

ministration Review, 45, 403410.

Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy per-

formance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach

to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) the-ory of leadership over 25 yearsApplying a multi-level multi-

domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219247.

Gregory, D. J., & Park, R. K. (1992, January). Occupational study

of federal executives, managers, & supervisors: An application of the

Multipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis InventoryClosed Ended

(Mosaic) (PRD-92-21). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Personnel

Management, Employment Service, Personnel Resources and Devel-

opment Center.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,

R. L. (2006).Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural

equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Elec-

tronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 5360. Retrievedfrom http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-i1/Hooperetal.pdf

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition:

Advancing age and changing times. New York: Guilford Press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to fac-

tor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141151.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Lentz, L. (1993). Development of a management skills model for the

Department of Labor and Industry. Unpublished report, Harrisburg:

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.

Leslie, J. B., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Feedback to managers: A review

and comparison of multi-rater instruments for management develop-

ment(3rd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Morical, K. E. (1999). A product review: 360 assessments. Training &

Development, 53(4), 43.

Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2006). Leadership and managerial

competency models: A simplified process and resulting model.Ad-

vances in Developing Human Resources, 8(2), 144165.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric theory(2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Office of Management and Budget. (2007). North American indus-

try classification system. Washington, DC: Author.

Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Educa-

tion (PSUCaPE). (2007). Penn State Leadership Competency Inven-

tory: Administration Instructions. University Park: Author.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and valida-

tion of the leadership practices inventory. Educational and Psycholog-

ical Measurement, 48, 483496.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of

the leadership practices inventory-updated. Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 53, 191199.

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. K.

(2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated human

resource practices. Human Resource Management, 41, 309324.

Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).

(1992). Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America 2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.


12/12

50 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES V l 4 N b 3 DOI 10 1002/jl

Form A (DAS-A) in a community sample. International Journal of

Psychiatry in Medicine,38, 141152.

Hyung Joon Yoon is a Ph.D. candidate in human resourcedevelopment and organization development at thePennsylvania State University. He can be reached [email protected].

Ji Hoon Song is an assistant professor at Oklahoma StateUniversity. He holds a Ph.D. in training and human re-sources from the Pennsylvania State University. His e-mailaddress is [email protected].

Wesley E. Donahue is the director of Business, Engineering,and Technology Programs and associate professor of Workforce

Education and Development Program at the PennsylvaniaState University. He earned a Ph.D. in workforce educa-tion from Penn State. He can be reached at [email protected].

Katheryn K. Woodley is associate professor, ManagementDevelopment Programs, Pennsylvania State University. Sheearned a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychologyfrom Union Graduate School. She can be contacted [email protected].

Spenser, L. M., & Spenser, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Mod-

els for superior performance. New York: Wiley.

Stevens, J. (2002).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.

Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Itsdescription and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University Col-

lege of Administrative Science.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a lead-

ership pattern. Harvard Business Review,36(2), 95101.

Thach, E., & Thompson, K. J. (2007). Trading places: Examining

leadership competencies between for-profit vs. public and non-profit

leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,28, 356375.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis:

Understanding concepts and applications.Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (2007). Delegated ex-amining operations handbook: A guide for federal agency examining

offices. Washington, DC. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from

http://www.opm.gov/deu/Handbook_2007/DEO_Handbook.pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Devel-

opment Group, & Office of Executive and Management Policy.

(1993). Leadership effectiveness framework and inventory. Unpub-

lished report. Washington, DC: Author.

Wong, D. F. K., Chan, K. S., & Lau, Y. (2008). The reliability and

validity of the Chinese version of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale

volume 0 issue 2010 [doi 10.1002%2fjls.20176] hyung joon yoon; ji hoon song; wesley e. donahue;...

Documents