The Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The Construction and Validation of a New

Scale for Measuring Leader Behaviors

Author(s): Josh A. Arnold, Sharon Arad, Jonathan A. Rhoades and Fritz Drasgow
Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior , May, 2000, Vol. 21, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp.
249-269
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3100332

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3100332?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Organizational Behavior

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

The empowering leadership questionnaire:

the construction and validation of a new
scale for measuring leader behaviors

JOSH A. ARNOLD1*, SHARON ARAD2, JONATHAN A. RHOADES3

AND FRITZ DRASGOW4
'College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840, U.S.A.
2Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN 55414, U.S.A.
3Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, U.S.A.
4Department of Psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, U.S.A.

Summary This paper describes the construction and empirical evaluation of a new scale for
measuring empowering leader behavior. Study One consisted of thorough interviews
with external leaders and team members in three organizations. Behaviors elicited in the
interviews were classified by researchers into eight categories of leader empowering
behavior and the Empowering Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) was constructed to
measure each of these categories. In Study Two, the ELQ was administered to team
members and leaders from two organizations. The results indicated that five-factors
(Coaching, Informing, Leading By Example, Showing Concern/Interacting with the
Team, and Participative Decision-Making) adequately describe the data. In Study
Three, we cross-validated the scale in a sample from five organizations and the factor
analysis confirmed the five-factor model. The ELQ dimensions were also compared with
behaviors measured by two well-established measures of leader behavior. The results
indicated that the ELQ dimensions partially overlap with previously identified con-
structs, but that empowering leadership behavior can not be entirely accounted for by
the earlier measures. Definitions and implications for the categories of empowering
leader behaviors are offered. Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

In response to increasing global economic competition, many companies have undergone

dramatic structural changes. To improve the overall flexibility and efficiency of their
organizations, many companies have replaced their traditional hierarchical management
structures with empowered (semi-autonomous or self-managing) work teams. Duties that were

* Correspondence to: Josh Arnold, College of Business Administration, Department of Management/Human Resource
Management, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]

Portions of this paper were presented at the 1995 Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology.
Part support from the University of Illinois Center for Human Resources Management.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 21 January 1998
Accepted 29 October 1998

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
250 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

once performed by managers, such as directing and controlling work, are

empowered teams. The managers that remain, in turn, have been asked to t
roles and responsibilities in order to lead these teams (Drucker, 1983; Ma
Lawler, 1986, 1992). However, despite the current popularity and widespread
teams, there is little empirical research that examines the skills necessary to lead
The purpose of the present set of studies was to examine the behaviors of
empowered teams (i.e., managers who are not team members, but who ar
providing leadership) and to establish an empirical basis for understanding
today's modern organizations.
There is a striking contrast between the structure and processes of tradit
and those of empowered or flat organizations. The traditional organizatio
hierarchical structure, centralized decision making, and a top down philosophy
and Sims, 1987; Walton and Hackman, 1986). In this environment, the role
workers are well defined. Workers are responsible for doing the work ass
managers. Managers, in turn, are responsible for defining and structuring the
making important decisions, providing rewards, and telling employees what to
1988, Manz and Sims, 1987; Schriesheim, House and Kerr, 1976). This stru
corresponding roles of managers and employees, has typified organizations sinc
early organizational theorists.
Changes in the business environment brought on by foreign competition,
and product development demands, and the gradual shift from a manufact
oriented economy, have led many organizations to adopt a different approa
ment of work and workers (Jackson and Alvarez, 1992; Johnston and Pa
companies have eliminated layers of management in order to streamline the
cut costs. The reduction in staff as well as an accompanying change in mana
has led to a greater reliance on teams to accomplish the work and to take on th
managers (Lawler, 1986; Manz and Sims, 1993; Tichy and Ulrich, 1984; Walt
1986). The process of implementing conditions that increase employees' feelings
and control (e.g., participative decision making), and removing conditions that f
powerlessness (e.g., bureaucracy), has been popularly referred to as empow
Drasgow, 1994 ('Empowered work groups: conceptual and empirical assessm
ment processes and outcomes in organization': Paper presented as part of a
annual meetings of the Society of the Industrial and Organizational Psycho
TN, U.S.A.); Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Lawler, 1986; Liden and Arad, 1996
Researchers believe that both the employee and the company benefit fro
(Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Gecas, 1989; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Law
and Sims, 1987).
The current emphasis on teams, and most importantly on empowered t
accompanied by different requirements for both workers and leaders in these o
time, workers in empowered teams are granted more autonomy, self-direction,
their work environment. Some teams even have the responsibility for schedulin
vacations, ordering materials, hiring and firing employees, and determining pa
1986; Liden and Tewksbury, 1995). Managers, on the other hand, are required to
encourage self-management, and promote empowerment. Additionally, m
required to model appropriate behaviors, provide social and emotional enco
trust and openness, encourage self-reinforcement, provide information and res
tasks, encourage self-goal setting, and provide and communicate a vision (B
1985; Lawler, 1986; Liden and Tewksbury, 1995; Manz and Sims, 1987; Sche

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 251

The change in managers' roles and responsibilities in empowered environments appears

require a corresponding change in the types of leadership behaviors they employ. Howev
although the behavioral requirements of leaders in empowered team environments and t
tional environments appears to be quite different, there may be some similarities. An inspectio
of the research on leadership in these two environments suggests that some overlap may exist.
example, the construct 'Consideration' which was identified in studies of leadership in tradition
organizations (Haplin, 1957; Stogdill, 1963), seems quite similar to the construct 'Provid
Social Support' which was identified in studies of empowering leadership (Manz and Sims, 1987)
The amount of overlap in the leader behaviors of traditional and empowered environmen
however, is unknown and warrants an empirical investigation.

Measuring leadership in empowered

team environments

Past research on leader behavior has produced a substantial number of instruments for measur-
ing leader behavior and its effectiveness, such as the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ) (Haplin, 1957) and the revised LBDQ (Stogdill, 1963) (see Clark and Clark, 1990, for a
review). The apparent differences between the leadership requirements of traditional and
empowered environments, however, suggests that traditional measures of leadership may be, at
most, only partially applicable to empowered team environments. These instruments may not
encompass the spectrum of behaviors that are required for effective leadership in empowering
organizations (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Manz and Sims, 1987; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990;
Walton and Hackman, 1986). The large number of new leader behavior constructs proposed in
the empowerment literature attest to this idea (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1987). Thus, a new
behavioral measure of leadership that is sensitive to the requirements of empowered team
environments appears to be needed.
The construction of such an instrument can be accomplished through one of three approaches.
The first is through the use of existing theory of empowerment to derive constructs of leader
behavior. Unfortunately, despite some research on the empowerment construct (see Spreitzer,
1995), the development of a strong theoretical underpinning for leader behavior has lagged.
Although a number of authors have discussed the factors that may effect empowerment (e.g.,
organizational factors, supervisory style, reward systems, job design) (see Conger and Kanungo,
1988; Spreitzer, 1996), there is little theory focusing on the role of effective leader behavior in
empowered team environments.
A second approach to the development of a new scale is to use the leadership constructs and
behaviors identified by empowerment researchers. This body of work contains a plethora of
potential constructs and behaviors that leaders might perform to empower workers (see Bennis
and Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987; Burke, 1986;. Conger and Kanungo, 1988; House, 1977; Kanter,
1979; Manz and Sims, 1987; Spreitzer, 1995; Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Thomas and Velthouse,
1990; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). Unfortunately, it is unclear which of the many behaviors
would be most appropriate to choose for the creation of a scale measuring team leadership.
Moreover, few of these constructs and behaviors were generated from an empirical investigation
of leader behavior in an empowered team environment. Thus, the actual relevance of these
behaviors for effective leadership in empowered team environments is largely speculative.
An alternative approach to the first two is to derive the instrument through an inductive, or
bottom-up, investigation of leadership behavior in empowered team environments. This

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
252 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

approach circumvents the difficulties associated with a reliance on possibly incom

integrated theory and research, and should improve the comprehensiveness
leader behavior instrument.
A step in this direction was provided by Manz and Sims (1987). In their study, Manz and Sims
used observations and interviews with leaders of non-unionized teams to develop the Self-
Management Leadership Questionnaire (SMLQ). They then compared the SMLQ's leader
behavior constructs to those identified in self-management and sociotechnical systems theory.
While this study provided an important first step, it was limited in several respects. First, the same
participants, jobs, and organization were used for eliciting empowering behaviors and validating
the questionnaire. The use of only one sample for the development and validation of the scale
places limitations on the generalizability of the results. Second, the lack of an independent cross-
validation sample serves as a less stringent test of a scale than is conventionally required. Finally,
Manz and Sims compared the SMLQ's constructs with existing theory based on their conceptual
similarities and differences. The true empirical overlap of the SMLQ constructs and traditional
measures of leader behavior remains unknown.

Overview

In the present investigation, we describe the construction, validation, and cross-validation of a

new scale for measuring effective leadership in empowering environments. In Study One, we
gathered information about the behaviors that are needed for managers to lead effectively in
empowered team environments. We then constructed a scale (the Empowering Leadership
Questionnaire or ELQ) to measure each category of empowering leadership behavior. In Study
Two, we evaluated the reliability and factor structure of the ELQ in several organizations. In
Study Three, we cross-validated the instrument in a sample from several different organizations.
In addition, we investigated the empirical relation of the ELQ with two traditional measures of
leader behavior.

Study One-Elicitation

Study One was used to elicit information about the critical leader behaviors for empowered
teams. To obtain up-to-date information, and to better understand the behaviors required in
empowered team environments, we conducted in-depth interviews with team leaders and
members in three empowering organizations. The types of teams that were interviewed varied in
function, size, purpose, and level of autonomy given to workers. All of the teams who partici-
pated in the elicitation study were self-managing work teams.
The purpose of the interview was to elicit the behaviors associated with effective team
leadership in empowering organizations. It is important to note that effective team leadership in
these organizations may involve behaviors that do not necessarily increase perceptions of
empowerment. The focus of the paper is on behaviors that are associated with effective team
leadership in empowered environments and not necessarily on behaviors that are associated with
increased perceptions of empowerment. It is possible, although unlikely, that there may be some
behaviors that are associated with effective leadership in these environments, but not
empowerment. In other words, we are not assuming that all effective leadership behaviors in

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 253

empowered team environments necessarily lead to increased perceptions of empowerment

Presumably, given the past research on empowerment, these behaviors and empowering
behaviors should overlap considerably. The degree of overlap, however, is yet to be determined.
The focus of the elicitation study was on effective team leadership behavior in environments
where teams have been given autonomy, self-direction, and control; and asked to take on t
roles and responsibilities traditionally held by middle management.

Method

Participants
A total of 195 team members and leaders volunteered to participate in this study. The partici-
pants were obtained from three very different organizations: a clothing retailer, a building
products supplier, and a telecommunications corporation. These companies differed on several
counts, including: the size of the parent organization, the proportion of employees who worked
in empowered teams, the length of time these teams had been in use, the size and function of the
teams, and the type and range of products that were produced by each company. The participants
were both male and female employees, and ranged in age from 18-60. Nearly every educational
and socio-economic background was represented, from workers with only high school degrees to
those with graduate degrees. The interviewees represented every level in these organizations, from
the workers up to a company president.

The clothing retailer The first organization was a medium-sized retail clothing chain head-
quartered in the Midwest. Some departments and stores within this organization had teams with
a history of empowerment, while other departments had more recently established empowered
teams. We conducted interviews at five locations, including the corporate headquarters and four
retail stores. A total of 10 team leaders from all levels of the organization and 25 team members
were interviewed. The participants represented the areas of sales, customer service, and training.

The building products supplier The second organization was a small, employee-owned building
products supply company that had a history of empowering workers. We conducted interviews
at the company's distribution centre and headquarters. The participants included 7 team leaders,
14 individual team members, and 6 intact work teams (interviewed with all team members
present). The functions that were represented included material support, sales, accounting,
customer service, and production.

The telecommunications corporation The third organization was a large telecommunications

corporation. The participants had been working in empowered teams for a period of about one-
and-a-half years. Recently, the company had gone through extensive reorganization and some of
the teams that were interviewed had not yet been reassigned, but were designated to do so.
Interviews were conducted at three different sites. At these sites, we interviewed a total of 9 team
leaders, 28 individual team members, and 7 intact work teams.

Procedure
Participants were scheduled for an interview time, and met the interviewer in a private office or
small meeting room. Each participant was informed that the purpose of the interview was to
gather information about the important skills, abilities, and behaviors of leaders of empowered

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

teams. The participants were asked for their permission to tape record the
assured that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential. All p
to the recording.

The interview Participants were asked to describe the effective and ineffective b
first-line or direct managers. The interview questions were designed to focu
leader behavior. This was done to minimize the impact of participants' im
leadership. The interview format consisted of five basic open-ended question
were: (1) What do managers of effective work groups do? That is, what behavior
mind when you think of a manager of an effective work group? (2) What do
effective work groups do? That is, what behaviors/skills come to mind whe
manager of a less effective work group? (3) What behaviors and skills, do y
effective from ineffective work group managers? (4) Think about a situation
which a manager of a work group contributed greatly to the successful per
group-What was the task facing the group? What did this manager actually do t
work group to be productive? How did the manager's behavior contribute
success? What managerial skills do you think this manager's behavior demon
about a situation you have been in which a work group manager hurt the pe
group-What was the task facing the group? What did this manager actually
the work group from being productive? How did the manager's behavior
group's lack of success? What managerial skills do you think this manager's
strated? The interview sessions lasted from 20 minutes to one-and-a-half h
interview lasted about 30 minutes.

Identifying leader behaviors After all interviews were concluded, we went through several steps to
identify conceptual groupings of leader behaviors. We began by transcribing the audio record-
ings of each interview session. These transcriptions were then content coded by three industrial/
organizational psychologists who had participated in the interviews with team leaders and team
members. From the transcripts each coder generated a list of the leadership behaviors that were
mentioned in the interviews and each behavior was copied onto an index card. Redundant cards
were removed and the three coders sorted a total of 125 behaviors into groups according to their
conceptual similarities.

Results and discussion

The final classification consisted of eight tentative categories of leader behaviors for empowered
teams. Definitions of the constructs that were generated from this analysis, examples of each, and
a sample behavior are included below.

Leading by example Leading by example refers to a set of behaviors that show the leader's
commitment to his or her own work as well as the work of his/her team members. This category
included behaviors such as working as hard as he/she can and working harder than team
members. (Sample behavior: Sets high standards for performance by his/her own behavior.)

Coaching Coaching refers to a set of behaviors that educate team members and help them to
become self-reliant. This category included behaviors such as making suggestions about

Copyright ( 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 255

performance improvements and helping the team to be self-reliant. (Sample behavior: Helps my
work group see areas in which we need more training.)

Encouraging Encouraging refers to a set of behaviors that promote high performance. This
category included behaviors such as acknowledging team efforts and encouraging team members
to solve problems together. (Sample behavior: Encourages my work group to set high
performance goals.)

Participative decision making Participative decision making refers to a leader's use of team
members' information and input in making decisions. This category included behaviors such as
encouraging team members to express their ideas and opinions. (Sample behavior: Uses my
work group's suggestions to make decisions that affect us.)

Informing Informing refers to the leader's dissemination of company wide information such as
mission and philosophy as well as other important information. This category included
behaviors such as explaining company decisions to the team and informing the team about new
developments in organizational policy. (Sample behavior: explains company goals.)

Showing concern Showing concern is a collection of behaviors that demonstrate a general regard
for team members' well-being. This category included behaviors such as taking time to discuss
team members concerns. (Sample behavior: Treats group members with respect.)

Interacting with the team This construct incorporates behaviors that are important when
interfacing with the team as a whole. This category included behaviors such as keeping track of
what is going on in the team and working closely with the team as a whole. (Sample behavior:
Knows what work is being done in my work group.)

Group management The final construct is that of group management. This collection of beha-
viors refers to the leader's management of team functioning. This category included behaviors
such as helping to develop good relations among work group members and suggesting that team
members evaluate their own work. (Sample behavior: Lets my group handle our own problems.)

The objective of Study One was to elicit a comprehensive set of leader behavior constructs in
empowering environments. Several of the constructs that were identified in the study were similar
to those suggested in other studies of empowered teams, namely coaching, participative decision
making, and encouraging (see Manz and Sims, 1987). There were other constructs, however, that
appeared to be distinct.
The results of Study One should not be taken as providing conclusive evidence for the existence
of a particular set of leader behavior constructs in empowering environments. Rather, it was
intended to elicit a set of behaviors, and provide an initial classification of them. The question of
whether these behavioral categories are an accurate reflection of the underlying constructs, or
alternatively, are an artifact of our data collection methods, the researchers, or both, were
addressed in Study Two.
From Study One, we identified eight categories of behaviors that can be used to form an
empirical basis for model construction and testing. To warrant stronger inferences, it is important
to validate the constructs and, therefore, we felt that it was necessary to create an instrument to
measure the constructs. The next section outlines the creation and testing of this instrument.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Study Two

In Study Two, we wrote multiple items to measure each of the eight categories of leader behavior.
We then collected responses to these items for empowered (self-managing) teams in two organ-
izations and subsequently examined the factor structure of the new instrument.

Method

Sample
In total, 205 employees provided complete data. Ninety-five employees were customer service
representatives from three offices of an international telecommunication corporation and 110
employees were from a building products supplier in the Midwest. The team members from the
building products supplier held a variety of job positions such as mill work production, loading,
drivers, sales, customer service, accounting, and other support functions. All the participants
worked in team environments.
There were 97 female and 108 male employees in our sample. The ages of the participants
ranged from 18-60, and the average age was 37. Eighty-three per cent of the participants were
Caucasians and 17 per cent were minorities. The participants had a variety of educational
backgrounds ranging from a high school to college education. Average organizational tenure for
participants was 8 years. All participants volunteered to participate in the study.

Materials
Multiple items were written to measure each of the eight constructs of empowering leader
behavior, identified in Study One. The items were written by the three industrial/organizational
psychologists who had participated in the interviews with team leaders and team members. The
items were derived from an examination of the interview protocols from Study One. The
language for the items was taken from the original interviews whenever possible. Items that
appeared too complex, too ambiguous, or did not describe behavior were excluded from the
instrument. The final version of the instrument included 48 items, across the eight subscales (six
items per construct). Participants were asked to assess the frequency of their external team
leader's performance of each of these behaviors. A 5-point response scale, where 1 = 'never' and
5 = 'always', was used.

Data collection procedure

The leadership instrument, containing the eight subscales, was administered as part of a larger
organizational survey in two companies. The survey consisted of a series of questions about
employees' job attitudes and team experiences. It was administered by the researchers to groups
of 10-20 employees at companies' sites.

Analysis
We took a two-pronged approach to the analysis of the instrument. First, we performed a set of
analyses using the individual items. We obtained a correlation matrix for the items within a

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 257

subscale, and deleted those with low inter-item and item-total correlations. We then performed
factor analyses on the item-level data. However, as is typically the case with discrete item
responses, many of the individual items did not satisfy the linearity assumption of standar
factor analysis models nor did they satisfy the multivariate normality assumption of maximum
likelihood estimation methods. Therefore, in the second phase of our analyses, we formed item
dyads by adding pairs of items within a subscale. This process was expected to improve the fit of
the data to the linearity assumption of factor analysis and the multivariate normality assumption.
The subscales were then analyzed by confirmatory factor analyses, with LISREL VIII (Joreskog
and Sorbom, 1993), to examine the factor structure of the proposed instrument. Factor para-
meters were estimated using generalized least squares.
We considered a number of alternative factor models in the process of evaluating the proposed
factor structure. The appropriateness of each model was examined using several indices of fit such
as the ratio of chi-square to its degrees of freedom, LISREL's goodness of fit indices, the roo
mean-square residuals, and standardized residuals. Each of these models was considered
plausible given previous research on empowerment (see Conger and Kanungo, 1988; House,
1977; Manz and Sims, 1987; Mahoney and Arnkoff, 1979; Neilsen, 1986).

Results

Five items were deleted due to low inter-item correlations and low item-total correlations. Four
additional items were deleted due to low factor loadings in the item-level factor analysis. Turning
now to the analysis of the multi-item composites, fit indices for several alternative models are
summarized in Table 1.
LISREL's estimation procedure did not converge for the eight-factor model after 200 itera-
tions. It also did not converge for a seven-factor model, in which the items for the Encouraging
subscale were allowed to load on other factors. The six-factor model, in which Interacting with
the Team and Group Management were combined into one factor, provided a moderately good

Table 1. Model fit indices for each model

Competing model x2 df GFI AGFI RMSR

Study Two validation
Eight-factor model*
Seven-factor model*
Six-factor model 252.5 137 0.87 0.82 0.08
Five-factor model 261.8 142 0.86 0.82 0.08
Four-factor model A 272.2 146 0.86 0.82 0.08
Four-factor model B 271.9 146 0.86 0.82 0.08
One-factor model 294.6 152 0.84 0.80 0.09
Zero-factor model 3057.2 171 0.15 0.06 0.53

Study Three cross-validation

Five-factor model 344.3 142 0.91 0.87 0.04
Four-factor model A 392.2 146 0.89 0.86 0.05
Four-factor model B 384.8 146 0.89 0.86 0.05
One-factor model 606.1 152 0.73 0.79 0.07
Zero-factor model 7338 171 0.12 0.02 0.61

* = LISREL's iterative estimation procedure did not con

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Behav.

J. Organiz. Ltd. 21,

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

fit. However, factor 5 (Showing Concern) and factor 6 (Interacting/Managing

highly correlated, r = 0.97, suggesting that they were not distinct in our sample.
Thus, we examined the fit of a five-factor model, where Showing Concern and I
the Team were combined into a single factor. Comparisons between the six-factor
five-factor model showed a relatively small difference in chi-square, 9.33, w
freedom. The ratio indicates that Showing Concern and Interacting with the
factorally distinct in our sample. Also, there was little decrement in the goodness o
the root mean square residuals. Thus, these two subscales were merged into a
which we will refer to as Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team.
The five-factor model showed high correlations between Coaching (factor 2) and
Decision Making (factor 3), r = 0.94, and also between Participative Decision M
and Interacting with the Team (factor 5), r = 0.93 (see Table 3). Due to thes
intercorrelations, we examined two four-factor models. In the first four-factor m
Participative Decision Making and Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team
into one factor. In the second four-factor model, model 'B', Coaching and Particip
Making were combined into one factor.
Comparisons of the five-factor model and each of the four-factor models s
changes in the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratios; model A AX2/Adf = 10.4/4
B AX2/Adf = 10.14/4 = 2.5. Ratios of this size, given our sample of N = 205
evidence for the existence of separate factors underlying Participative Decision Ma
Concern/Interacting with the Team, and Coaching behaviors. Examination of
however, suggested that the four-factor models fit the data nearly as well as the fi
Thus, the decision to separate or merge Participative Decision Making and Sh
Interacting with the Team (model 'A'), and/or Participative Decision Making
(model 'B') could not be made from empirical criteria alone.
Therefore, we subsequently attempted to identify if there were any impor
differences between constructs in the four-factor models. To do this, we had twe
organizational psychologists sort the items that formed the Participative Deci
Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team factors (model 'A'), and the item
Participative Decision Making and Coaching factors (model 'B'). Eleven of the 1
that Participative Decision Making and Showing Concern/Interacting with the
were conceptually distinct, and all 12 judges agreed that Participative Decis
Coaching behaviors were conceptually distinct. Thus, the judgments of the tw
raters provide support for the five-factor model, including the separation
Decision Making, Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team, and Coaching
also worth noting that these three constructs are similar to others mentioned in th
literature (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1987). In sum, the equivocal empirical criter
sorting, and the similarity among these constructs and others identified in th
literature suggest that the five-factor model was the most reasonable to pursue.
We now turn to the parameter estimates for the five-factor model. The factor l
multi-item composites used as indicators for the five-factor model are presented
means, standard deviations, and the coefficient a for scales assessing each o
behavioral categories are also presented in Table 2. This table shows factor lo
fairly high; moreover, internal consistency reliability exceeded 0.85 for all five sc
acceptable.
The factor intercorrelations, shown in Table 3, seemed questionably high. To check the
accuracy of LISREL's estimated factor correlations, we computed disattenuated correlations. We
formed a scale for each factor by adding the items that measure each factor, computed coefficient

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 259

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for ELQ scales and subscale factor loadings
for the five-factor model

Subscale I II III IV V mean S.D.

Leading by Example 3.91 (3.95) 0.84(0.84) 0.91 (0.89)

Subscale 1 0.85(0.77)
Subscale 2 0.78 (0.92)
Subscale 3 0.77 (0.81)
Coaching 3.73(3.73) 0.73(0.81) 0.90(0.93)
Subscale 4 0.67(0.77)
Subscale 5 0.74 (0.85)
Subscale 6 0.75 (0.86)
Subscale 7 0.83 (0.83)
Subscale 8 0.78 (0.88)
Participative Decision Making 3.75(3.61) 0.74(0.84) 0.86(0.92)
Subscale 9 0.84 (0.91)
Subscale 10 0.82(0.81)
Subscale 11 0.57 (0.91)
Informing 3.62(3.55) 0.78(0.88) 0.85(0.91)
Subscale 12 0.83 (0.78)
Subscale 13 0.82 (0.82)
Subscale 14 0.68(0.90)
Show Concern 3.90(3.84) 0.70(0.84) 0.89(0.94)
Subscale 15 0.84 (0.89)
Subscale 16 0.71(0.91)
Subscale 17 0.79 (0.89)
Subscale 18 0.81 (0.84)
Subscale 19 0.75 (0.78)

Note. All non-zero factor loadings are significa

zero. Numbers in parentheses are from the cro

Table 3. Factor intercorrelations for the five-factor model

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

Factor 1
Factor 2 0.85 (0.83)
Factor 3 0.84 (0.80) 0.94 (0.91)
Factor 4 0.67 (0.70) 0.88 (0.86) 0.81 (0.79)
Factor 5 0.88 (0.83) 0.93 (0.91) 0.94 (0.90) 0.78 (0.82)

Note. All correlations are significant at the p = 0.01 level. Numbers in parentheses are f
(see Study Three).

a for each scale, and applied the standard disattenuation formula (se
Table 4 presents the observed correlations of the ELQ scales and the d
correlations. A comparison of the LISREL VIII factor intercorrelation
correlations indicates that LISREL VIII's factor intercorrelations wer
the average. This finding was surprising: coefficient a provides an estima
reliability and therefore our disattenuated correlations represent an estim
the correlations among constructs. One explanation of these results is th
estimates of factor correlations that are biased in a positive directio

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (20

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
260 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Table 4. Observed correlations and disattenuated correlations for ELQ scales based on a

Scale 1 2 3 4 5

Scale 1 - 0.67 0.72 0.53 0.74

Scale 2 0.70 - 0.65 0.65 0.66
Scale 3 0.77 0.74 - 0.62 0.79
Scale 4 0.60 0.75 0.73 - 0.69
Scale 5 0.82 0.73 0.90 0.79

Note. Observed correlations are abov

presented in the order given in Table 2

likelihood estimates are statis

plausible that the interfactor

Study Three

The results of the second study indicated that there were five categories of behaviors that were
important for the effective leadership of empowered teams. These behaviors were: Leading by
Example, Coaching, Participative Decision Making, Informing, and Showing Concern/Inter-
acting with the Team. The purpose of Study Three was to replicate and extend the results of
Study Two. Although Study Two provided some evidence regarding the factor structure of the
ELQ, there were several limitations that needed to be addressed.
The first limitation concerns the lack of an independent confirmation of the five-factor model.
The data in Study Two were used to both select and assess the fit of the five-factor model.
Although this procedure is useful as a first step in identifying the factor structure of the
instrument, a more rigorous cross-validation of the five-factor model in an independent sample
was needed.
The second limitation of Study Two is that it did not allow a direct comparison between
leadership behaviors identified by the ELQ and those identified by existing measures. By
inspection, the ELQ constructs appeared to be largely distinct, but the true empirical relation was
still unknown. To address this limitation, we compared the leadership behaviors identified by the
ELQ with the behaviors identified by two well-established measures of leader behavior. First, we
compared the ELQ constructs with the fourteen leadership constructs in the Managerial Practices
Survey (MPS) (Yukl, 1989). The MPS was chosen because it is one of the most comprehensive
and rigorously developed leadership measures (see Clark and Clark, 1990). In order to best
highlight potential similarities and differences between the ELQ and other measures of leader-
ship, the MPS seemed an ideal comparison. Second, we compared the ELQ constructs with the
well known Consideration and Initiating Structure subscales of the LBDQ XII (Stogdill, 1963).

Method

Sample
The participants were 374 employees from five organizations. Ninety-one of the participants were
health care service employees from a health care provider located in the Midwest, 30 were

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 261

financial managers from an accounting firm in the Midwest, 183 were employees in a food
processing facility located in the Northwest, 40 were employees from a business supply company
located in the Midwest, and 30 were employees in a food service supplier located in th
Northwest. The companies differed in the degree to which they had established and supported
empowered teams. Although many of the teams were self-managing, there were task and cross-
functional teams in the sample as well.
The sample contained 221 female and 153 male employees. The ages of the participants ranged
from 16-65, and the average age was 35. Sixty-six per cent of the participants were Caucasians
and 34 per cent were minorities. The participants had a variety of educational background
ranging from a high school to a professional degree. Average organizational tenure fo
participants was 4-6 years. All participants volunteered to participate in the study.

Materials and procedure

The ELQ and the other two leadership scales (the LBDQ and the MPS) were administered as par
of a leadership skills survey in each of the five companies. The scales were administered to groups
of 10-20 employees at the companies' sites.

Results

The analysis consisted of two parts. First, we cross-validated the ELQ five-factor model in the
new sample. Then, we compared the five ELQ constructs (see Appendix) to the leader behavior
constructs measured by the other two instruments.

Cross-validation Scale means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha reliability estimates ar
shown in parentheses in Table 2. The results for Study Three are similar to the results from
Study Two and indicate satisfactory reliability for all five ELQ subscales.
Next, to cross-validate the five ELQ factors, we first formed item dyads, as in Study Two, using
pairs of items within an ELQ subscale. The confirmatory five-factor model was then fit to th
data from the new sample. To fit the model, we first computed initial estimates with an ordinary
least squares (OLS) procedure, then used generalized least squares (GLS) estimation to obtain
the final estimates. These estimates were computed with PROC CALIS, a SAS function.
The results suggest a somewhat better fit of the five-factor ELQ model in the cross-validation
sample than in the original factor analysis of Study Two (see Table 1). The chi-square was
somewhat large (x2 = 344.3, df = 142), though given the larger sample size in Study Three
(N = 374) than in Study Two (N = 205), this was not unexpected. The fit statistics that are les
dependent on sample size showed an improvement in Study Three: The GFI was 0.91, the AGF
was 0.87, and the RMSR was 0.04.
Table 1 also shows the fit statistics for the two four-factor models described previously. A
comparison of the X2 for the two four-factor models, with the X2 for the five-factor model, reveal
a difference of more than 40. Given that these differences involve just 4 degrees of freedom, Study
Three provides additional support for the five-factor model.
Table 2 shows that the factor loadings were largely the same across Study Two and Study
Three; the factor intercorrelations, presented in Table 3, were also similar across data sets. In
sum, these results provide evidence that supports the stability of the ELQ factor structure.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
262 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Table 5. Correlations between leader behavior constructs

ELQ LBDQ

Leading Coaching Participative Informing Show Initiating Consideration

by Example Decision- Concern Str.
making

LBDQ
Initiating Str. 0.69 0.75 0.62 0.69 0.66 1.0
Consideration 0.70 0.76 0.77 0.67 0.81 0.69 1.0

MPS
Informing 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.51
Planning 0.52 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.57 0.50
Clarifying 0.49 0.65 0.54 0.60 0.54 0.59 0.54
Consulting 0.63 0.65 0.74 0.57 0.67 0.55 0.67
Inspiring 0.63 0.72 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.65
Recognizing 0.59 0.68 0.74 0.60 0.68 0.52 0.66
Monitoring 0.41 0.58 0.49 0.52 0.50 0.54 0.50
Problem Solving 0.58 0.65 0.61 0.51 0.61 0.59 0.59
Supporting 0.62 0.67 0.75 0.57 0.73 0.53 0.70
Team Building 0.61 0.72 0.71 0.65 0.72 0.62 0.71
Networking 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.38 0.42
Delegating 0.36 0.39 0.45 0.38 0.40 0.28 0.41
Mentoring 0.50 0.59 0.56 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.52
Rewarding 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.47

Note. All correlations are significant at the p = 0.001 level.

Comparison to other leader behavior measures To d

related to the LBDQ and MPS constructs, we performe
correlational analysis, which examined the bivariat
those of the other instruments. The second was a r
the LBDQ and MPS subscales to predict responses
used canonical correlation to determine the multivaria
the other two instruments.
The Pearson product-moment correlations between the ELQ subscales and those of the
LBDQ and MPS can be seen in Table 5. The correlations are all strong, positive, and significant
at the p = 0.001 level. This pattern of correlations suggests that the ELQ constructs are
significantly related to the other leader behavior constructs. Note the high correlation between
the ELQ Showing Concern/Interaction with the Team subscale and the LBDQ Consideration
subscale. This finding confirms the similarity of this ELQ construct with the older LBDQ
construct (see Table 5). However, it is clear that the ambient level of correlation in this data set is
quite high. For example, the correlation between the two LBDQ constructs (i.e., Initiating
Structure and Consideration) is 0.69. The consistently high correlations between all behavior
constructs, regardless of the instrument, suggests that ratings of all types of leader behaviors are
substantially related. Therefore, we should not expect a subscale assessing some aspect of
empowerment (e.g., Leading by Example) to have a near-zero correlation with a subscale
measuring traditional leader behavior (e.g., Initiating Structure).
To examine the degree to which the ELQ provides information redundant with the older
measures, we regressed each of the ELQ scales on the LBDQ and MPS scales. The adjusted R2s
from these regressions can be seen in Table 6. These values indicate that, in general, slightly over

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 263

Table 6. Regression results: Adjusted R2s

Independent Variables

ELQ Scales LBDQ Scales MPS Scales

Leading by Example 0.57 0.53
Coaching 0.68 0.65
Participative Decision-Making 0.62 0.69
Informing 0.54 0.51
Showing Concern/Interacting 0.67 0.65

Table 7. Canonical correlations

Canonical Variable ELQ and LBDQ ELQ and MPS MPS and LBDQ
1 0.88t 0.87t 0.82t
2 0.44t 0.52t 0.41t
3 -0.39t
4 -0.29*
5 -0.18

*p = 0.05; tp = 0

half of the varian

ingly, the 14 scal
scales. Of the EL
the Team showed
The R2s for Lea
uniqueness.
In addition to t
multivariate relat
we computed ca
LBDQ and MPS. T
quite large, indic
same basic patter
variable, followed
secondary charact

General Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to develop a new measurement instrument for assessing leade
empowering behaviors. The first study, the elicitation study, revealed eight conceptually distinct
categories of leader empowering behaviors. We then constructed an instrument to measure each
of these behavioral categories and validated it in several organizations. The initial empirica
investigation of the reliability and factor structure of the new instrument supported a five-factor
model. A third study was conducted to cross-validate the results for the new instrument and
relate it to two well-established leader behavior instruments.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Empirical evaluation of the ELQ

The results of Study Two suggest that the data can be accounted for by s
models. Conceptual judgments of the items, however, provided support for five
by Example, Coaching, Participative Decision-Making, Informing, and Sho
Interacting with the Team. Some of these categories of leader behaviors are
found in the existing leadership literature, namely: coaching and training, an
with work groups. However, the ELQ behavioral categories seem more characteri
and activities of leaders of empowered teams, as described by Manz and Sim
(1990).
The presence of alternative models in the second study can be accounted for by high
correlations among some of the factors. As suggested by Table 4, LISREL's factor intercorrela-
tions may be inflated. However, even when disattenuated, the ELQ scale correlations are still
quite high. One explanation for these high correlations is that leader behaviors tend to co-occur,
either because of unique organizational values/characteristics or the accompanying leadership
training programmes. It is possible that the ELQ behavioral categories would be more distinct,
empirically, in other organizations. Resolving this issue requires the evaluation of the factor
structure of this instrument in different types of samples (i.e., traditional workers versus team
members) and organizations (i.e., traditional versus participative).
Study Three allowed us to examine this issue further. The cross-validation results provided
strong support for the five-factor solution, using a more diverse sample of organizations and
teams. The degree of empowering practices, climate, and structures in that sample varied greatly
across the five participating organizations. Nevertheless, the results of Study Three showed
similar correlations among leader behavior categories within the ELQ, indicating some cross-
organizational stability in the ELQ's factor structure.
The comparison of the ELQ subscales and those of the LBDQ and MPS in Study Three also
indicated that the size of the correlations among the ELQ subscales was not unusual for other
measures of leadership behavior. This finding suggests that the observed high correlations
between leader behaviors are not just due to sample or organizational characteristics, but may
instead be a property of leader behavior rating scales. Regardless of the instrument or the
particular behavioral category used, subordinates' ratings were either consistently favorable or
unfavorable. We believe that these results demonstrate a 'halo effect', or subordinates' tendency
to have a holistic perception, favorable or unfavorable, of their supervisor/manager that affects
their ratings. Thus, observed high correlations among behavioral categories should not be taken
as evidence that these categories are essentially redundant.

The ELQ and empowerment

Conger and Kanungo (1988), Spreitzer (1996), and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) have identified
a number of contextual (environmental, social-structural) characteristics that effect empower-
ment (e.g., organizational factors, supervisory style, reward systems, job design). Leadership
behavior (or supervisory style) is believed to contribute to empowerment to the degree to which it
effects an individual's or team's perception of meaning, competence (or self-efficacy), self-
determination, or impact (Spreitzer, 1996). According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy or com-
petence (and thus empowerment) can be influenced though providing positive emotional support,
through words of encouragement and positive persuasion, through having models of success with

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 265

whom people identify, and though the actual experience of the mastering of a task with succes
(Conger, 1989). The categories of the ELQ (Participative Decision Making, Showing Concer
Interacting with the Team, Leading by Example, Informing, and Coaching) correspond qu
well with the mechanisms described by Bandura. The role of Coaching, Informing,
Participative Decision-Making behaviors in the empowerment process has been suggested
number of researchers (see Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Blau and Alba, 1982; Bowen and Lawl
1992; Neilson, 1986). In addition, the ELQ categories parallel socio-structural characteris
found to effect empowerment (e.g., participative unit climate, sociopolitical support, acce
information, and training and development) (Spreitzer, 1996).
Manz and Sims (1987) argued that the uniqueness of the role of leaders of empowered w
groups lies in the commitment to the philosophy that teams should successfully comp
necessary leadership functions for themselves. According to these authors, the dominant role o
the external work group leader is to lead others to lead themselves. Thus, the fundame
difference between traditional leader behavior variables and the ones measured in the ELQ is th
shift in the source of control from the leader to the team members. The leader behaviors of the
ELQ are aimed at helping team members function and perform as a self-managed business unit.
In the balance, the set of behaviors that are required for effective leadership in the empowered
team environment seem to characterize 'leadership' rather than 'management' behaviors.
Although there is some disagreement regarding the utility of the distinction (Yukl and Van Fleet,
1992), many argue that it is critical (see Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Zalenik, 1977). Unfortunately,
the exact nature of the difference between the two functions is not entirely clear (see Bennis and
Nanus, 1985; Gardner, 1990; Kotter, 1990). Generally, however, there is a greater emphasis on
developing others and influencing commitment with leadership behaviors than with management
behaviors (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992). The ELQ categories (e.g.,
Coaching, Informing, Leading by Example, Participative Decision-Making) seem to reflect this
emphasis.

The ELQ and traditional leader measures

Study Three demonstrated the uniqueness and value of the ELQ in relation to other existing
measures of traditional leadership behaviors. While the ELQ overlapped somewhat with the
LBDQ and the MPS, it was not redundant with either of them. For example, even though the
ELQ and the MPS were administered in the same environment, the average correlation between
the 14 constructs of the MPS and the ELQ was only 0.56. Only slightly over half of the variance
of the ELQ could be accounted for by the LBDQ and MPS. Given that the reliability of the
measures was substantially high, this variance appears reliable. This large amount of unique
variance indicates that empowered team environments require leaders to behave in ways that are
not found in traditional work environments, nor measured by traditional measures of leader
behavior.
Overall, the results of Study Three were consistent with our initial expectations. We expected a
modest degree of overlap in the behavioral requirements of leaders in empowered team and
traditional environments (much like two partially overlapping circles in a Venn diagram). The
uniqueness of the ELQ and the context in which it was developed, however, suggests that it
should be more useful in empowered versus traditional settings.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Applications

The interpretation of the results of Study Two and Study Thee depends upon the intended use of
this instrument. Clearly, the application of this instrument for assessment, training, or
performance evaluation would benefit from more, rather than fewer behavioral categories. The
information included in each category can be very useful for assessing and improving leadership
effectiveness as well as evaluating the effectiveness of leader training programmes. Collapsing
categories together, due to their high correlations, could decrease the quantity and quality of
information that can be provided by the instrument. On the other hand, a single empowering
leadership behavior dimension would probably suffice for a predictive validity study relating, for
example, general intelligence to leader behavior.
The degree to which the ELQ would be useful for empowered environments in which there are
different types of teams (e.g., task, problem-solving, cross-functional), and to individuals is an
open question. Consistent with the purpose of the paper, the categories of the ELQ were derived
from research with empowered (autonomous or self-managing) teams. Given this constraint, the
degree to which the ELQ would be applicable to other types of teams is unclear. The make-up of
the final ELQ categories and their relation to the empowerment literature, suggests that the ELQ
may be useful for other team environments as well. Similarly, the final five categories of behavior
identified by the ELQ (Coaching, Informing, Leading by Example, Showing Concern/Interacting
with the Team, and Participative Decision-Making) appear to be relevant for both teams and
individuals. Although empowerment is most often discussed with regard to teams (as teams have
become the primary means though which work is done in organizations), there is little in the past
research by Bandura (1986), Conger and Kanungo (1988), Spreitzer (1995), and Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) that would suggest that the process is not applicable to individuals as well.

Future directions

This paper provides one of the first empirical accounts of what many suggest is a new type of
leadership. By no means, however, is the task complete. Further comparisons of the ELQ
dimensions with others in the leadership literature is needed. For example, some of the behaviors
identified by the ELQ (e.g., Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team) may be similar to those
identified in the transformational and/or charismatic leadership literature (e.g., Providing
Individual Support) (see House, 1977; Podsakoff et al., 1990). In addition, future studies invest-
igating the predictive validity of the ELQ in empowered and traditional environments is needed
as well.
There is also a need for the continued refinement and validation of the scale. Future research
relating the ELQ behavior constructs with measures of empowerment (e.g., Spreitzer, 1996) and
effectiveness would be a useful next step. In addition, future studies of empowering leadership
need to examine the role of organizational characteristics in shaping and constraining leader
behavior. This research should also explore theoretical and empirical relationships between this
instrument and other processes and outcomes of empowered teams. A nomological framework
that relates leadership, organizational structures, empowerment, and work outcome variables
should be empirically examined. This process of construct validation would improve our
understanding of the effectiveness and potential use of the leader behavior inventory. A greater
understanding of empowering leadership would have implications for both the theory and
practice of management.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 267

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Cognitive View, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership, Harper & Row, New York.
Blau, J. R. and Alba, R. D. (1982). 'Empowering nets of participation', Administrative Science Quarterly,
27, 363-379.
Block, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bowen, D. and Lawler, E. (1992). 'The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and when?',
Sloan Management Review, 33, 31-39.
Burke, W. (1986). 'Leadership as the empowerment of others'. In: Srivastra, S. (Ed.) Executive Power,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 51-77.
Conger, J. A. (1989). 'Leadership: the art of empowering others', Academy of Management Executive, 3(1),
17-24.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). 'The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice',
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Clark, K. E. and Clark, M. B. (1990). Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, Inc., West
Orange, N.J.
Drucker, P. F. (1983). Twilight of the first line supervisor? Wall Street Journal, June, 7.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On Leadership, Free Press, New York.
Gecas, V. (1989). 'The social psychology of self-efficacy', Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291-316.
Haplin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Bureau of Business
Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
House, R. J. (1977). 'A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership'. In: Hunt, J. G. and Larsor, L. L. (Eds.)
Leadership. The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp.189-207.
Jackson and Associates (Eds.) (1992). Working Through Diversity: Human Resources Initiatives, Guilford
Press, New York.
Johnston, W. B. and Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1994). LISREL VIII: A Guide to the Program and Applications, SPSS,
Chicago.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). 'Power failure in management circuits', Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). 'What leaders really do', Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational
Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Lawler, E. E. (1988). 'Substitutes for hierarchy', Organizational Dynamics, 17(1), 4-15.
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating High-Involvement Organization, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Liden, R. C. and Arad, S. (1996). 'A power perspective of empowerment and work groups: implications for
human resources management research', Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 14,
205-251.
Liden, R. C. and Tewksbury, T. W. (1995). 'Empowerment and work teams'. In: Reffis, G. R., Rosen, S. D.
and Barnum, D. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Human Resource Management, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge,
Mass., pp. 386-403.
Lord, F. M. and Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Mahoney, M. J. and Arnkoff, D. B. (1979). 'Self-management: theory, research and application'. In: Brady,
J. P. and Pomerleau, D. (Eds.) Behavioral Medicine: Theory and Practice, Williams & Williams,
Baltimore, pp. 75-96.
Manz, C. C. (1990). 'Self-leading work teams: moving beyond self-management myths', Human Relations,
45, 1119-1140.
Manz, C. C. and Sims, H. P. Jr. (1987). 'Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-
managed work teams', Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Manz, C. C. and Sims, H. P. Jr. (1993). Business Without Bosses: How Superteams are Managing and
Leading Themselves, Wiley, New York.

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 J. A. ARNOLD ET AL.

Neilsen, E. (1986). 'Empowerment strategies: balancing authority and responsibility'.

Executive Power, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 78-110.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). 'Transfor
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leaders, satisfaction, and organi
behaviors', Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Quinn, R. E. and Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). 'The road to empowerment: seven questions
consider', Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37-49.
Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Franci
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J. and Kerr, S. (1976). 'Leader initiating structure:
discrepant research results and some empirical tests', Organizational Behavior and Hu
15, 297-321.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). 'Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
validation', Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). 'Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerm
Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manualfor the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-F
Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Thomas, K. W. and Velthouse, B. A. (1990). 'Cognitive elements of empowerment: an "in
of intrinsic task motivation', Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681.
Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A. (1986). The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New
Tichy, N. and Ulrich, D. (1984). 'The leadership challenge: a call for the transforma
Management Review, 26(1), 59-68.
Walton, R. E. and Hackman, J. R. (1986). 'Groups under contrasting managem
Goodman, P. S. and Associates (Eds.) Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bas
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cl
Yukl, G. A. and Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). 'Theory and research on leadership in org
Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizationa
ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 147-197.
Zalenik, A. (1977). 'Managers and leaders: are they different?', Havard Business Revi

Appendix
ELQ items

Leading By Example
Sets high standards for performance by his/her own behavior
Works as hard as he/she can
Works as hard as anyone in my work group
Sets a good example by the way he/she behaves
Leads by example

Participative Decision-Making
Encourages work group members to express ideas/suggestions
Listens to my work group's ideas and suggestions
Uses my work group's suggestions to make decisions that affect us
Gives all work group members a chance to voice their opinions
Considers my work group's ideas when he/she disagrees with them
Makes decisions that are based only on his/her own ideas

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 269

Coaching
Helps my work group see areas in which we need more training
Suggests ways to improve my work group's performance
Encourages work group members to solve problems together
Encourages work group members to exchange information with one another
Provides help to work group members
Teaches work group members how to solve problems on their own
Pays attention to my work group's efforts
Tells my work group when we perform well
Supports my work group's efforts
Helps my work group focus on our goals
Helps develop good relations among work group members

Informing
Explains company decisions
Explains company goals
Explains how my work group fits into the company
Explains the purpose of the company's policies to my work group
Explains rules and expectations to my work group
Explains his/her decisions and actions to my work group

Showing Concern/Interacting with the Team

Cares about work group members' personal problems
Shows concern for work group members' well-being
Treats work group members as equals
Takes the time to discuss work group members' concerns patiently
Shows concern for work group members' success
Stays in touch with my work group
Gets along with my work group members
Gives work group members honest and fair answers
Knows what work is being done in my work group
Finds time to chat with work group members

Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 249-269 (2000)

This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 16:38:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms