LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY I N V E N T O RY: A S Y S T E M AT I C PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A N D VA L I D AT I N G A LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY SCALE

HYUNG JOON YOON, JI HOON SONG, WESLEY E. DONAHUE, AND KATHERYN K. WOODLEY

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. Preliminary validity and reliability evidence of the LCI was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item-total correlations, Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The four-factor leadership competency scale, comprising supervisory and managerial competencies, 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.

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

39

As Peter Drucker often mentioned, leaders in organizations have known that if you cant measure it, you cant manage it (Drucker & Garvin, 1998, p. 69). This maxim, generally applied to management of organizational tasks and processes, can also be applied to how one manages his or her leadership development. Many organizations use assessments of various types to identify the leadership competencies or skill sets that current 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 validation 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 underlying theory. Some of the behavioral and competencybased instruments assess only self-perception (self-report of behavior), while others add feedback from direct reports, peers, supervisors, and customers. The primary practical use of such behavioral or competency-based instruments is for increased self-awareness and subsequent leadership development. Instruments to assess an individuals leadership style owe much of their development to the behavioral studies 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 leadership 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 psychometric instruments as part of needs assessment for

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 competency as an underlying 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 identification and development plays in performance improvement, 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 competencybased 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 selection, 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 departmental leadership model. More recently, Naquin and Holton (2006) developed the Louisiana Managerial/ Supervisory Survey (LMSS), based on OPMs Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF). The OPM leadership models (MEF and LEF) were selected as the basis for Penn States Leadership Competency Inventory

40

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

(LCI) because (1) they were developed with input from more than 10,000 individuals spanning multiple leadership levels, (2) OPMs competencies are inclusive and comprehensive, and (3) the models are in the public domain. The LCI was developed by faculty members of Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education (PSUCaPE, 2007). Similar to the development of Lentzs and Naquin and Holtons scales (1993 and 2006, respectively), the LCI was developed following preliminary research using the OPM model (Donahue, 1996). Unlike Lentzs and Naquin and Holtons studies, the 2007 version of the LCI was expanded to include competencies identified in the SCANS report for America 2000 (Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1992). The LCI has been used by PSUCaPE to identify leadership training and development needs over the past two years; in practice, it has played a critical role in management development business. At the time of this writing, 34 organizations have used the LCI to assess the leadership development needs of their supervisors and managers. More than 75% of them subscribed to development programs based on the results (E. Bergstrom, personal communication, May 7, 2009). PSUCaPE received an Applied Research award in 2009 from University Continuing Education Association (UCEA) for the LCIs innovative features and its contribution to adult and continuing education. Although PSUCaPE clients in both private and public sectors have reported very favorable results from use of the LCI, no formal validation study had been undertaken. To have greater confidence in the results provided to clients, a rigorous validation study of the LCI must be conducted.

the LCI. If the evidence turns out to be valid, the process of development and validation of the LCI may be duplicated by researchers and practitioners.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The LCI incorporated competencies from studies conducted by the federal government. One is the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF; U.S. Office of Personnel Management [OPM], Human Resources Development Group [HRDG], & Office of Executive and Management Policy [OEMP], 1993); the other is the SCANS report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992).
LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK

Purpose of the Study

Two aims guide this study. The first purpose of this article is to report the process in developing a competencybased leadership inventory because the development of the LCI has never been published. In addition, reviewing the development process of any assessment is essential for researchers to ensure the validity and soundness of the assessment as well. The second purpose of this article is to examine the validity evidence of the LCI with data collected from organizations that have administered

The LEF was preceded by the MEF (Flanders & Utterback, 1985) and is based on the results of the research updates of the MEF. The MEF was based on Howard and Brays 30-year personnel assessment research (1988) on 26 behavioral dimensions in AT&T (as cited in Donahue, 1996). Both LEF and MEF were developed for federal government employees by OPM and were intended to identify salient competencies for several levels of leadership positions: supervisors, managers, and executives. They were also designed to be used as part of the Multipurpose Occupational Systems and Analysis Inventory-Closed Ended (MOSAIC). This inventory included general, clerical, and technical competencies in an effort to identify the importance of the competencies for every occupation in the federal government (OPM, 2007). Three methods were used to identify the 22 competencies of the MEF: a questionnaire, the critical incident interview technique, and focus group interviews with panels of supervisors and managers (Flanders & Utterback, 1985). The MEF had two major domains for the 22 competencies: effective characteristics and management functions. According to Gregory and Park (1992), OPM conducted a leadership competency study with a stratified, random sample of 20,664 executives, managers, and supervisors in the federal government in 1992. The response, by 49% of the sample, supported the existence of 22 competencies. In a 1998 update of the LEF, the OPM added new competencies and grouped them into five categories: leading change, leading people, building coalitions/communication, results

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

41

driven, and business acumen. The additional competencies 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 employees 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 assessment of a broader base of competencies. There are two large domains in the SCANS report: competencies and foundational skills. There are five categories included within the competencies domain: resources, information, interpersonal, systems, and technology. Within the foundational skills domain, three categories are identified: basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities. Each categories has three to six subitems; for example, the resources category has the subitems allocates time, allocates money, allocates material and facility resources, and allocates human resources. The personal qualities category includes responsibility, self-esteem, social, self-management, and integrity/honesty (SCANS, 1992).

using an expert review process. For example, client orientation became customer focus, and the behavioral description was changed from anticipates and meets the needs of clients; achieves quality endproducts; is committed to improving services (OPM, 2007, p. 244) to actively seeks customer input; ensures that customer needs are met; continuously seeks to improve the quality of services, products, and processes (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3). Step 2. The experts reviewed the SCANS report and identified additional, necessary skills from the items under each category of the SCANS report. To ensure consistency with the modified 22 items of the LCI, some of the items from the SCANS report were consolidated into one competency. For example, uses computers to process information, reading, writing, speaking, listening, arithmetic, and mathematics was modified to computer and basic literacy and defined as proficient in using personal computer and learning new software; reads, writes, and performs mathematical operations; speaks and listens with comprehension. This process resulted in eight competencies: computer and basic literacy, conceptual thinking, learning and information, resource usage, understanding systems, interpersonal relationship building, self responsibility and management, and resource management. Step 3. After reviewing the results of the LEF study conducted in 1998 (OPM, 2007), the experts identified two additional competencies for the LCI: strategic thinking and leading change. This brought the total number of competencies to 32. Including leading change as a competency was a variation from the OPM model, which used it as a category. In the LCI, it was defined as leads organizational transformation and change efforts; champions organizational change (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3). Step 4. Through an iterative process, the developers used their judgment to place the 32 items into a fivecategory model: personal mastery, managing processes, managing resources, leadership, and managing relationships. This proved a very workable and understandable model, but it had not been subjected to validation research. This step was seen as important to confirming the value of the LCI for diverse industries.

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, respectively, 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 integration process. Including the SCANS report was considered 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 descriptions of the 22 LEF competencies were modified

42

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

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 of clients to confirm its soundness. Their feedback led to minor changes in wording of the competencies and definitions to ensure understandability, clarity, and appropriateness.

The LCI also has four open-ended questions (related to other important competencies, prior training and development experience, job responsibilities, and current organizational challenges).The present study did not analyze responses to the four open-ended questions. Respondents indicate the degree of importance and development need for each of the 32 competency items by using a fivepoint Likert scale. Results are reported at the group, rather than individual, level and include feedback on individual competencies as well as competency clusters.
PROCEDURE

Validation Method
PARTICIPANTS

A total of 323 individuals from 11 health carerelated organizations were drawn from a larger dataset, because this population exclusively satisfied the minimum number 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 Management and Budget, 2007), are under the health care and social assistance industry. The other two organizations were nursing homes, which, although classified by NAICS under the real estate and rental and leasing category, were considered health care organizations for purposes 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 background 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 is administered to members of client organizations by a PSUCaPE faculty-administrator team using LCI packets. Typically, the packets include administration instructions, 20 forms for individuals (I) and 5 forms for managers (M). The process includes several steps, from confirming that the LCI would be appropriate for the client, through pre- and postadministration 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 PSUCaPE 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 LCI has two parallel forms: Form I (individual) for members of the group for whom the assessment is targeted, and Form M (manager) for people who supervise members of the target population. This study used the data obtained via Form I. In completing the LCI, respondents 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.

The decision was made to use the development need data for 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 criterion (Kaiser, 1960) was used to determine the number of factors. To test reliability, 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

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

43

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 reduce 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 represent the proposed factors on the basis of collected data (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004). To determine the soundness of the model fit, factor loadings and t-values were examined. In addition, five model-fit indices were considered to examine the psychometric properties between the proposed factor structure and the collected data in terms of model-data fit: 2 (chisquare), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), 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 supervisory/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 diverse workforce item under the supervisory/ managerial competencies factor. However, the managing diverse workforce item could be included in the supervisory/managerial competencies because the factor loading is 0.38, which is very close to 0.40. Using this approach, SM consisted

of 12 competencies: teamwork and cooperation, flexibility and resilience, decisiveness, problem solving, self-direction, customer focus, leadership and coaching, influencing and negotiating, interpersonal relationship building, conflict management, management controls, and managing diverse workforce. OL included nine: strategic thinking and planning, leading change, planning and evaluation, vision, external awareness , technology management , human performance management, financial management and budgeting, and creative thinking. PM consists of seven: oral communications, written communications, conceptual thinking, interpersonal competence, learning and information, self-responsibility and management, and understands systems. Lastly, RL included four: technical competence, resource management, computer and basic literacy, and resource 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 similar to items under the foundation skills domain in the SCANS report (SCANS, 1992). PSUCaPE (2007) also had the personal mastery category, which was determined by the developers of the LCI. For the RL, the SCANS report also had resources and technology categories (SCANS, 1992), and PSUCaPE (2007) had the managing resources category. These findings may suggest that categories of leadership competencies can be adjusted according to target populations.
RELIABILIT Y 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 scale was 0.955. This gives confidence that the reliability for newly defined factors and the overall scale are acceptable (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 itemtotal correlation were also found to be acceptable.

44

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

Table 1. Promax Rotated Factor Matrix Showing Factor Loadings for the 32 LCI Competencies
Factor 1: Supervisory/Managerial Competencies 0.800 0.798 0.718 0.680 0.661 0.652 0.646 0.627 0.547 0.466 0.448 0.379 0.068 0.040 0.179 0.186 0.198 0.214 0.135 0.080 0.283 0.133 0.019 0.072 0.284 0.126 0.096 0.289 0.027 0.095 0.301 0.080 13.589 42.467 Factor 2: Organizational Leadership 0.035 0.090 0.027 0 078 0.182 0.007 0.016 0.267 0.058 0.028 0.232 0.192 0.796 0.710 0.648 0.616 0.586 0.558 0.548 0.497 0.491 0.160 0.113 0.124 0.121 0.133 0.064 0.146 0.037 0.013 0.047 0.063 2.238 6.994 Factor 3: Personal Mastery 0.018 0.108 0.055 0 015 0 080 0.153 0.054 0.029 0.228 0.390 0.004 0.064 0.090 0.191 0.165 0.113 0.135 0.099 0.056 0.221 0.044 0.735 0.682 0.601 0.527 0.511 0.503 0.460 0.94 0.202 0.040 0.274 1.685 5.264 Factor 4: Resource Management 0.084 0.065 0.128 0.203 0.036 0.078 0.157 0.115 0.258 0.054 0.133 0.172 0.058 0.174 0.144 0.240 0.450 0.128 0.050 0.033 0.002 0.000 0.041 0.194 0.092 0.366 0.322 0.214 0.618 0.550 0.533 0.443 1.214 3.794

Variable Teamwork and cooperation (20) Flexibility and resilience (13) Decisiveness (15) Problem solving (14) Self-direction (16) Customer focus (24) Leadership and coaching (12) Influencing and negotiating (21) Interpersonal relationship building (11) Conflict management (19) Management controls (25) Managing diverse workforce (18) Strategic thinking and planning (31) Leading change (32) Planning and evaluation (23) Vision (29) External awareness (30) Technology management (27) Human performance management (22) Financial management and budgeting (26) Creative thinking (28) Oral communications (9) Written communications (10) Conceptual thinking (2) Interpersonal competence (5) Learning and information (3) Self-responsibility and management (4) Understands systems (8) Technical competence (6) Resource management (17) Computer and basic literacy (1) Resource usage (7) Eigenvalues Percentage of variance

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

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations With Subscales and Total Scale
Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in the Main Scale) 0.677 0.653 0.603 0.722 0.667 0.677 0.663 0.546 0.704 0.670 0.696 0.682

Variable Interpersonal relationship building (11) Leadership and coaching (12) Flexibility and resilience (13) Problem solving (14) Decisiveness (15) Self-direction (16) Managing diverse workforce (18) Conflict management (19) Teamwork and cooperation (20) Influencing and negotiating (21) Customer focus (24) Management controls (25)

M 2.684 2.988 2.777 2.746 2.820 2.641 2.514 3.127 2.786 2.873 2.762 2.588

SD 1.228 1.131 1.211 1.122 1.158 1.203 1.183 1.192 1.251 1.095 1.267 1.159

Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in a Subscale) 0.661 0.691 0.659 0.735 0.705 0.686 0.625 0.588 0.752 0.681 0.714 0.658

Supervisory/Managerial Competencies (Cronbachs a 0.924) Human performance management (22) Planning and evaluation (23) Financial management and budgeting (26) Technology management (27) Creative thinking (28) Vision (29) External awareness (30) Strategic thinking and planning (31) Leading change (32) 2.882 2.972 3.152 2.873 2.842 2.916 2.972 2.960 2.997 1.213 1.082 1.367 1.100 1.157 1.082 1.093 1.180 1.160 0.613 0.705 0.503 0.615 0.646 0.640 0.710 0.689 0.540 0.600 0.627 0.375 0.615 0.616 0.624 0.583 0.614 0.468

Organizational Leadership (Cronbachs a 0.880) Conceptual thinking (2) Learning and information (3) Self-responsibility and management (4) Interpersonal competence (5) Understands systems (8) Oral communications (9) Written communications (10) Personal Mastery (Cronbachs a 0.885) Computer and basic literacy (1) Technical competence (6) Resource usage (7) Resource management (17) Resource Leadership (Cronbachs a 0.776) Leadership Competency (Cronbachs a 0.955)
Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number.

2.433 2.443 2.963 2.632 2.718 2.786 2.746

1.202 1.273 1.192 1.220 1.085 1.019 1.059

0.713 0.676 0.652 0.685 0.658 0.689 0.660

0.663 0.650 0.592 0.645 0.583 0.661 0.650

2.793 2.613 2.762 2.690

1.144 1.129 1.129 1.122

0.510 0.617 0.597 0.595

0.435 0.545 0.644 0.635

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 performed. First, higher-order CFA uses the four latent factors 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 statistically acceptable (factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.77; t-values ranged from 8.90 to 14.00). Table 3 shows the 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 support a small magnitude of the residuals of the proposed measurement model (RMSEA 0.068 and SRMR 0.055). The chi-square estimates were statistically 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 research (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). In addition, several model fit indices confirmed a statistically acceptable fit of data to the factor structure of the proposed measurement model. Moreover, a higher-order CFA analysis was conducted to ensure unidimensionality of the leadership competency inventory, based on the rationale that the four proposed latent factors are measuring general leadership competencies (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). All standardized factor loadings are illustrated in Figure 1.

According to the results of the higher-order CFA analysis, chi-square estimates were repeatedly statistically significant (2 [460] 1162.00; 2/df 2.52; p 0.001), because of the sensitivity of the chi-square to the large sample size (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). Additional indices provide statistically acceptable 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 proposed 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 appropriate, 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 modification. OPM also ensured that their leadership competencies 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.

Table 3. Single-Order CFA Results

Model 4 domains
Note: ** 0.01.

df 458

2 1134.89**

2/df 4.47

GFI 0.82

CFI 0.97

NNFI 0.97

RMSEA 0.068

SRMR 0.055

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

47

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

Leadership competencies

0.93 Supervisory/ managerial

0.78 Organizational leadership

0.90 Personal mastery

0.87 Resource leadership

0.71 0.71 0.68 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.67 0.60 0.77 0.71 0.74 0.70

sm1 sm2 sm3 sm4 sm5 sm6 sm7 sm8 sm9 sm10 sm11 sm12

0.66 0.74 0.51 0.68 0.72 0.71 0.75 0.76 0.55

ol1 ol2 ol3 ol4 ol5 ol6 ol7 ol8 ol9

0.77 0.74 0.68 0.73 0.70 0.75 0.72

pm1 pm2 pm3 pm4 pm5 pm6 pm7

0.55 0.67 0.75 0.74

rl1 rl2 rl3 rl4

Note: T-Value estimates of all standardized factor-loading estimates range from 8.36 to 13.82.

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 development needs data were used for this study. If the importance data were used, the factor structure might well turn out differently. 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 determine whether the four defined factors are valid for other major industries such as manufacturing and public service. Second, a validation study using the importance

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 development: 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.

48

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

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106148. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Carter, L., Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Linkage Inc.s best practices in leadership development handbook: Case studies, instruments, 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 modern 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). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting 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 importance 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 summary series: 360-degree assessment. Human Resource Planning, 26(4), 3444. Flanders, L. R., & Utterback, D. (1985). The management excellence inventory: A tool for management development. Public Administration Review, 45, 403410. Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 yearsApplying a multi-level multidomain 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 Development 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. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 5360. Retrieved from 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 factor 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 development (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. Advances 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 industry classification system. Washington, DC: Author. Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education (PSUCaPE). (2007). Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory: Administration Instructions. University Park: Author. Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and validation of the leadership practices inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 483496. Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership practices inventory-updated. Educational and Psychological 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.

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

49

Spenser, L. M., & Spenser, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models 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: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University College of Administrative Science. Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership 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 examining 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 Development Group, & Office of Executive and Management Policy. (1993). Leadership effectiveness framework and inventory. Unpublished 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

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 resource development and organization development at the Pennsylvania State University. He can be reached at drmtree@psu.edu. Ji Hoon Song is an assistant professor at Oklahoma State University. He holds a Ph.D. in training and human resources from the Pennsylvania State University. His e-mail address is jihoon.song@okstate.edu. Wesley E. Donahue is the director of Business, Engineering, and Technology Programs and associate professor of Workforce Education and Development Program at the Pennsylvania State University. He earned a Ph.D. in workforce education from Penn State. He can be reached at wed105 @psu.edu. Katheryn K. Woodley is associate professor, Management Development Programs, Pennsylvania State University. She earned a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from Union Graduate School. She can be contacted at kkw1@outreach.psu.edu.

50

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