Educational and http://epm.sagepub.

com/
Psychological Measurement

Defining and Measuring Empowering Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument
Lee J. Konczak, Damian J. Stelly and Michael L. Trusty
Educational and Psychological Measurement 2000 60: 301
DOI: 10.1177/00131640021970420

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/60/2/301

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Educational and Psychological Measurement can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://epm.sagepub.com/content/60/2/301.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
KONCZAK ET AL.

DEFINING AND MEASURING EMPOWERING

LEADER BEHAVIORS: DEVELOPMENT
OF AN UPWARD FEEDBACK INSTRUMENT

LEE J. KONCZAK
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

DAMIAN J. STELLY
J.C. Penney

MICHAEL L. TRUSTY
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

Empowerment is a popular management practice, but there has been little research to
identify empowering behaviors of leaders. The present article discusses the development
of an instrument designed to measure empowering leader behavior (Study 1) and the
relationship of the instrument to several theoretically relevant variables (Study 2). Con-
firmatory factor analyses supported a six-dimension model of empowering leader behav-
ior. Furthermore, psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between six
dimensions of empowering leader behavior and two outcome variables, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment.

Recently, researchers interested in empowerment have focused their at-

tention on construct definition and explication of the antecedents and conse-
quences of empowerment (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995,
1996). However, research concerning the leader’s role in the empowerment

The authors would like to thank Robert L. Cardy, Scott Highhouse, and Debbie Ungerott for
comments on an earlier version of this article. Portions of Study 1 were presented at the 11th an-
nual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 26-28, 1996,
San Diego, California, and portions of Study 2 were presented at the 12th annual conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 11-13, 1997, St. Louis,
Missouri. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Lee J. Konczak,
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., One Busch Place, 202-7, St. Louis, MO 63118.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60 No. 2, April 2000 301-313
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
301

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

302 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

process has not been considered in contemporary conceptualizations of psy-

chological empowerment. The purpose of the present study was to identify
leader behaviors associated with employee empowerment and to develop a
measure to be used in the context of a leadership development program. Fol-
lowing a brief literature review and discussion of the theoretical rationale for
the development of the measure, the initial scale development process and re-
sults of confirmatory factor analyses are described in Study 1. Study 2 exam-
ines the relationships between the new measure of empowering leader behav-
iors and two theoretically relevant variables (i.e., perceptions of psychologi-
cal empowerment, job attitudes).

Previous Theory and Research

Conger and Kanungo (1988) were among the first to define psychological
empowerment. They described empowerment as “a process of enhancing
feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identifi-
cation of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by
both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing
efficacy information” (p. 474). Subsequently, Thomas and Velthouse (1990)
proposed a cognitive model in which they argued that empowerment is a mul-
tifaceted construct. These authors defined empowerment as intrinsic task
motivation resulting from a set of four task-related cognitions pertaining to
an individual’s work role: (a) meaning (the value of a work goal), (b) compe-
tence (similar to Conger and Kanungo’s self-efficacy), (c) self-determination
(choice in initiating and regulating actions), and (d) impact (influence over
strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes). Although the manager’s
influence is not emphasized by Thomas and Velthouse, it is likely that man-
agers influence subordinates’ task perceptions given their ability to affect
their subordinate’s job responsibilities.
To date, the only theory-based measure of empowerment was developed
by Spreitzer (1995) based on the facets of psychological empowerment
hypothesized by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). However, the relationship
between leader behavior and the experience of psychological empowerment
has not been investigated.

Dimensions of Leader-Empowering Behavior

Conger and Kanungo (1988) characterized empowerment as a process

that involves a manager sharing power with subordinates. To empower
implies the granting of power or delegation of authority (Burke, 1986) that, in
turn, should increase intrinsic motivation by influencing task assessments
related to meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact in Thomas
and Velthouse’s (1990) conceptualization. Consequently, Delegation of

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 303

Authority was one of the dimensions of empowering behavior identified in

the present study.
A second dimension of leader empowering behavior concerns the leader’s
emphasis on accountability for outcomes. According to Ford and Fottler
(1995), empowerment redistributes power but also provides a mechanism by
which responsibility for outcomes is placed with individuals and teams.
Conger (1989) describes how changes in authority must be accompanied by
restructuring of performance measurement systems to ensure that individu-
als and teams are evaluated and held accountable for performance they can
control. Thus, items also were developed in the present study to assess
Accountability.
Tannenbaum (1986) defined control as the individual’s ability to deter-
mine outcomes, act as a causal agent, and have an impact. To the extent that
empowerment is related to heightened self-efficacy perceptions, the degree
to which managers encourage independent decision making should be an
important element in the empowerment process. Thus, Encouragement of
Self-Directed Decision Making was identified in the present study as a
dimension of leader-empowering behavior. Based on the work of Manz and
Sims (1987, 1990) with self-managed teams, Encouragement of Self-
Directed Problem Solving was hypothesized as another dimension, distinct
from Encouragement of Self-Directed Decision Making. Although Encour-
agement of Self-Directed Decisions relates to decision making around plans,
goals, and procedures, Encouragement of Self-Directed Problem Solving
deals with taking initiative in identifying problems in work processes and
taking steps to correct these problems (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991).
According to Ford and Fottler (1995), empowerment requires managers to
share information and knowledge that enables employees to contribute
optimally to organizational performance. With respect to skill development,
Wellins et al. (1991) described the manager’s role as one of facilitating rather
than directing and controlling, with a significant proportion of the leader’s
time spent on securing appropriate training to ensure that employees develop
skills needed to support empowerment efforts. Based on these writings,
Information Sharing and Skill Development were included as dimensions of
leader-empowering behavior.
A final dimension of empowerment, labeled herein as Coaching for Inno-
vative Performance, includes leader behaviors that encourage calculated risk
taking and new ideas, provide performance feedback, and treat mistakes and
setbacks as opportunities to learn. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) pointed out
that widespread use of the term empowerment has come at a time when for-
eign competition and change have caused companies to search for alternative
management strategies that encourage commitment, risk taking, and innova-
tion. Leaders must ensure that risk taking is not punished while working with
subordinates to help them understand the reason for mistakes and reducing

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

304 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

the risk of their recurrence (McConnell, 1994; Wallace, 1993). To the extent
that leaders emphasize these types of behaviors, psychological empower-
ment should be influenced in a positive manner.
In Study 1, items were developed for each of the dimensions described
above, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor struc-
ture of the hypothesized dimensions comprising an instrument labeled the
Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ). In Study 2, follow-
ing refinement of the initial set of dimensions, the relationships of LEBQ
scales with job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment) and Spreitzer’s (1995) measure of psychological empowerment were
investigated.

Study 1
Several guidelines were followed during scale development. First, posi-
tive wording was used for all items to avoid the introduction of covariance as
a measurement artifact due to the use of positively and negatively worded
items (Idaszak & Drasgow, 1987). Second, given the applied nature of this
effort and the fact that lengthy questionnaires can result in careless respond-
ing, three items were developed to measure each of the hypothesized dimen-
sions. Finally, after draft items were developed, editing assistance was
obtained from line managers and human resource professionals, including
several doctoral-level psychologists, to ensure that items adequately repre-
sented the dimensions being measured and were clearly worded.

Method

Sample and procedures. The data used in Study 1 were collected from
1,309 subordinates who rated 424 managers participating in a leadership-
training program at a Fortune 500 consumer products company. The subordi-
nates were asked to complete the LEBQ anonymously to provide feedback to
the managers during the leadership program. At least 3 subordinates com-
pleted the LEBQ for each manager. Sixty-seven questionnaires with missing
responses on one or more items were omitted from the study.
The 424 managers represented three management levels: vice presidents
and directors (31%), managers (44%), and supervisors (16%). Data concern-
ing the organizational level of the remaining managers (9%) were not avail-
able. Many functional areas within the organization were represented, with
the majority of managers coming from the areas of administration (12%),
marketing (15%), and sales (27%). Demographic data concerning the 1,309
subordinates who provided the LEBQ ratings were not available because
their responses were collected anonymously.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 305

Measures and analyses. The initial version of the LEBQ consisted of 21

items with seven three-item scales representing the seven proposed dimen-
sions of leader-empowering behavior previously described. Items were
measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree). The urgency concerning the implementation of the leadership pro-
gram in the host organization precluded pretesting of the LEBQ items. Con-
sequently, it was decided to use the initial set of 21 items as part of the
leadership program and conduct the first confirmatory analysis when the
respondent-to-item ratio reached approximately 10:1 (Nunnally, 1978). Con-
firmatory analysis was conducted on the responses of 254 subordinates after
several offerings of the program. Based on these results as well as conceptual
considerations, a revised model was cross validated on the subsequent 988
responses. Maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analyses were con-
ducted on the interitem covariance matrices using PROC CALIS (SAS Insti-
tute, 1990). Model specification was similar to Cudeck’s (1989) Model 3.
Thus, all models tested were scale invariant. In addition, only correlated
models were tested as it was assumed that the dimensions were facets of an
underlying construct. Item means, standard deviations, and correlations are
available from the first author on request.

Results and Discussion

Means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas were computed on the

hypothesized dimensions using the initial sample (N = 254). Mean values
ranged from 4.83 to 5.90, indicating that the participants generally felt that
their supervisors engaged in empowering behaviors. Standard deviations
ranged from 0.93 to 1.30, indicating moderate variability in the ratings.
Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for the data and ranged from .82
to .88, with the exception of the data on the Encouragement of Self-Directed
Problem Solving dimension, which had a coefficient alpha of .70.
The initial confirmatory factor analysis resulted in marginally accept-
able model fit. Specifically, two of the three fit indices were less than the .90
convention suggested by Bentler and Bonett (1980) (comparative fit index
[CFI] = .93, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .85, adjusted goodness-of-fit
index [AGFI] = .80). The root mean squared residual (RMSR) was .12 com-
pared to the recommended .05 or less. Finally, the χ2 statistic was 433.01 (df =
168, p < .01).
To enhance model fit, the seven-factor model was modified using both
conceptual (e.g., item content) and statistical (e.g., modification indices) cri-
teria. The major aspect of the LEBQ revision involved the combining of three
items from the original decision-making and problem-solving dimensions to
form a revised Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions dimension. These

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

306 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

three items all focus on whether employees feel empowered to make their
own decisions about issues related to their work. Furthermore, two of the
original decision-making items were deleted because these items appeared to
be measuring participative decision making rather than the degree to which
managers empowered employees to make their own decisions (e.g., “My
manager always asks for input prior to making decisions that affect how I
accomplish my work”). In addition, the desirability of participative decision
making has been described as situationally dependent (Vroom & Yetton,
1973). The remaining problem-solving item, which dealt with whether man-
agers encouraged the use of systematic problem-solving techniques, was
reclassified as part of the Skill Development dimension. Reclassifying this
item seemed reasonable given that total quality management problem-
solving techniques are closely associated with employee development and
training programs in the host organization and in many other organizations.
An item was deleted from the Information Sharing dimension because it
differed from the other information sharing items in that it dealt with whether
a manager encourages subordinates to ask for needed information versus
whether the manager actively shares work-related information that subordi-
nates need to do their jobs effectively. A Skill Development item also was
deleted because, unlike other LEBQ items, it did not contain a “My manager”
stem and may not clearly have focused respondents on the task of rating their
managers’behaviors. The original items are available from the first author on
request.
The revised six-factor model was tested and yielded a much better fit. In
fact, all fit indices showed improvement and supported the revised six-factor
model (CFI = .96, GFI = .90, AGFI = .86, RMSR = .08, χ2 = 231.90, df = 104,
p < .05). The interfactor correlations ranged from .48 to .87. Standardized
factor pattern coefficients for the final six-factor model are reported in Table 1.
All coefficients were greater than .78 with the exception of Item 6 (.67) and
Item 12 (.55). All alpha reliability coefficients for the scores on the six
dimensions were acceptable (range = .80 to .91). There was moderate vari-
ability in the scales as indicated by the standard deviations (SDs = 0.93 to
1.33).
A single-factor model also was examined to exclude the possibility that
the LEBQ was measuring a unitary construct. As expected, fit indices for the
single-factor solution indicated poor model fit (CFI = .73, GFI = .69, AGFI =
.60, RMSR = .16, χ2 = 928.70, df = 119, p < .05).
The one-, six- and seven-factor models were then tested on the second,
independent sample of subordinates (N = 988). The seven-factor model had
marginally acceptable fit (CFI = .94, GFI = .89, AGFI = .85, RMSR = .11, χ2 =
1146.38, df = 168, p < .05), but as was the case in the initial sample, the more
parsimonious six-factor model provided better fit (CFI = .96, GFI = .94,
AGFI = .91, RMSR = .10, χ2 = 564.92, df = 104, p < .05). Finally, the fit indi-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 307

Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Pattern Coefficients for the Revised Six-Factor
Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ)

Sample 1 Sample 2

Standardized Standardized
Factor Factor
Dimension and Item Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value

Delegation of Authority
1. My manager gives me the authority
I need to make decisions that improve
work processes and procedures. .86 16.80 .83 31.13
2. My manager gives me the authority to
make changes necessary to improve things. .86 16.64 .86 33.03
3. My manager delegates authority to me that
is equal to the level of responsibility that
I am assigned. .83 15.72 .81 30.26
Accountability
4. My manager holds me accountable for the
work I am assigned. .87 16.72 .86 31.61
5. I am held accountable for performance
and results. .91 17.82 .89 33.20
6. My manager holds people in the department
accountable for customer satisfaction. .67 11.53 .65 21.98
Self-Directed Decision Making
7. My manager tries to help me arrive at my
own solutions when problems arise, rather
than telling me what he/she would do. .81 15.14 .82 30.25
8. My manager relies on me to make my own
decisions about issues that affect how work
gets done. .79 14.58 .79 28.67
9. My manager encourages me to develop my
own solutions to problems I encounter in
my work. .87 16.89 .85 31.95
Information Sharing
10. My manager shares information that I need
to ensure high quality results. .88 17.11 .90 34.96
11. My manager provides me with the
information I need to meet customers’ needs. .96 19.26 .93 36.71
Skill Development
12. My manager encourages me to use systematic
problem-solving methods (e.g., the seven-step
problem-solving model). .55 9.04 .62 20.64
13. My manager provides me with frequent
opportunities to develop new skills. .88 16.79 .85 31.99
14. My manager ensures that continuous learning
and skill development are priorities in our
department. .86 16.19 .90 34.65

(continued)

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

308 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 1 Continued

Sample 1 Sample 2

Standardized Standardized
Factor Factor
Dimension and Item Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value

Coaching for Innovative Performance

15. My manager is willing to risk mistakes on
my part if, over the long term, I will learn and
develop as a result of the experience. .80 14.82 .82 30.65
16. I am encouraged to try out new ideas even if
there is a chance they may not succeed. .87 16.50 .85 32.25
17. My manager focuses on corrective action
rather than placing blame when I make a
mistake. .79 14.34 .80 29.62

ces for the single-factor (null) solution indicated poor model fit (CFI = .77,
GFI = .73, AGFI = .65, RMSR = .14, χ2 = 2856.58, df = 119, p < .05).
All alpha reliability coefficients for scores on the six-factor model were
acceptable (range = .82 to .90). As with the initial sample, all standardized
factor coefficients were greater than .78 with the exception of Item 6 (.65) and
Item 12 (.62) (see Table 1). There was moderate variability in the scales as
indicated by the standard deviations (SDs = 0.99 to 1.37). The interfactor cor-
relations ranged from .40 to .88.
Overall, these results indicate that a six-factor model provides a good
description of the relationships among the LEBQ items. With respect to lead-
ership development, the LEBQ would appear to be a psychometrically sound
instrument for providing managers with feedback on behavior relevant to
employee empowerment. As an applied tool, the six-factor model provides
behaviorally specific feedback for coaching and development purposes.

Study 2
Study 2 was conducted to test the hypothesis that the LEBQ dimensions
would be positively related to the level of psychological empowerment expe-
rienced by subordinates. It also was hypothesized that both empowering
leader behavior and psychological empowerment would lead to attitudinal
outcomes in a manner similar to that described by Spreitzer (1995). In Spre-
itzer’s model, personality and work context variables influence outcome
variables (e.g., innovation) indirectly through psychological empowerment.
In the context of this preliminary nomological net, it was reasoned that leader
behaviors are an additional class of variables that should influence outcome
variables through their effect on psychological empowerment. Thus, it was

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 309

hypothesized that the psychological experience of empowerment would

mediate the relationships between leader-empowering behavior and job sat-
isfaction and organizational commitment.

Method

Participants. A questionnaire was sent to 150 managers at a Fortune 500

company located in the Midwest. The study participants were from a wide
range of functional areas within the organization, including marketing, engi-
neering, administration, operations, and others. Eighty-four employees
(56%) returned completed questionnaires. Collection of detailed demo-
graphic data (age, gender, etc.) was not possible. However, the average tenure
of employees in the sample was 12.75 years with a range from 1 to 28 years.
The majority of participants were from three organizational levels: director
(11%), manager (70%), and supervisor (19%). Most participants in the sam-
ple (82%) had college degrees.

Measures and procedure. Participants rated the degree to which their man-
agers engaged in empowering behaviors using the LEBQ. Participants also
rated their own job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and feelings of
psychological empowerment. Job satisfaction was assessed using a measure
of general job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Organizational com-
mitment was measured by the nine-item short form of the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Psychologi-
cal empowerment was assessed using the measure developed by Spreitzer
(1995), which is intended to assess the degree to which an employee feels
empowered on the job. The psychological empowerment measure is com-
posed of four related dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination,
and impact) that assess different aspects of a single construct (Spreitzer,
1995).

Results and Discussion

Means, standard deviations, alpha reliability coefficients, and correlations

among the nine measures appear in Table 2. There were moderate to large
correlations among all of the LEBQ scales and the composite measure of psy-
chological empowerment indicating that leader behaviors are related to the
psychological experience of empowerment. Table 2 also shows that both the
LEBQ scales and the psychological empowerment measure were related to
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. With the exception of the
competence facet of psychological empowerment, most of the correlations
between the LEBQ dimensions and the individual facets of psychological
empowerment also were moderate to large. Correlations between the LEBQ

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

310 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 2
Relationships Among Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ) Dimensions,
Psychological Empowerment, and Job Attitudes

Scale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Delegation of Authority 5.34 1.30 (.92)

2. Accountability 5.99 0.99 .31 (.82)
3. Encouragement of
Self-Directed Decisions 5.46 1.17 .78 .21 (.85)
4. Information Sharing 4.80 1.53 .67 .51 .67 (.93)
5. Skill Development 4.29 1.49 .63 .40 .58 .66 (.86)
6. Coaching for Innovative
Performance 4.70 1.47 .68 .26 .74 .74 .66 (.89)
7. Psychological
empowerment 5.63 .72 .62 .23 .54 .42 .47 .46 (.86)
8. Job satisfaction 5.26 1.16 .63 .32 .54 .55 .51 .48 .64 (.85)
9. Organizational
commitment 5.72 .83 .38 .41 .31 .35 .38 .31 .55 .69 (.87)

Note: Items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Correlations of .22 or greater are statistically sig-
nificant at p < .05 (two-tailed); coefficient alpha estimates of score internal consistency are given on the diago-
nal. N = 84.

dimensions and specific facets of Spreitzer’s (1995) Psychological Empow-

erment scale are available from the first author on request.
The next step was to test the hypothesis that psychological empowerment
would act as a mediator between the individual LEBQ subscales and the two
outcome measures, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This
was done following the four-step method outlined by Baron and Kenny
(1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981). These authors stated that four conditions
must be met to show that a bivariate relationship is mediated by a third vari-
able. First, the initial variable must be correlated with the outcome variable.
Second, the initial variable must be correlated with the mediator. Third, the
mediator must have a statistically significant effect on the outcome variable
when the initial variable is controlled for. Finally, if mediation is complete,
the effect of the initial variable on the outcome variable should be zero when
the mediator is controlled for. Meeting the first three criteria indicates partial
mediation, whereas also meeting the fourth indicates complete mediation.
As seen in Table 2, the LEBQ dimensions were correlated with job satis-
faction and organizational commitment, indicating that the conditions of the
first step were met (rs = .31 to .63). Furthermore, the LEBQ dimensions were
correlated with psychological empowerment, indicating that the conditions
of the second step were met (rs = .23 to .62). The third and fourth steps were
tested in multiple regression equations with each individual LEBQ dimen-
sion and psychological empowerment predicting job satisfaction and organ-
izational commitment. Table 3 shows that the third criterion was met for all
the combinations. Specifically, psychological empowerment at least partially

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 311

Table 3
Mediation Analyses: Impact of Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ)
Dimensions and Psychological Empowerment on Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment

Criterion

Organizational Job
Commitment Satisfaction
2 2
Predictor R b R b

Delegation of Authority .30* .04 .49* .33*

Psychological empowerment .58* .64*
Accountability .39* .25* .43* .21*
Psychological empowerment .54* .95*
Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions .30* .02 .46* .27*
Psychological empowerment .61* .78*
Information Sharing .32* .08 .50* .26*
Psychological empowerment .56* .79*
Skill Development .32* .09 .46* .21*
Psychological empowerment .54* .81*
Coaching for Innovative Performance .31* .04 .45* .18*
Psychological empowerment .59* .84*

Note. N = 84. Regression coefficients (b) are unstandardized. R2 values are for the full model.
*p < .05.

mediated the relationship between each LEBQ dimension and job satisfac-
tion and each LEBQ dimension and organizational commitment. For exam-
ple, psychological empowerment had a significant impact on job satisfaction
(b = .64, p < .05) in a regression equation that also included the LEBQ dimen-
sion Delegation of Authority. In addition, psychological empowerment com-
pletely mediated the relationship between each LEBQ dimension and organ-
izational commitment with the exception of Accountability. In the regression
equation predicting organizational commitment from psychological empow-
erment and Delegation of Authority, psychological empowerment had a sig-
nificant impact on organizational commitment (b = .58, p < .05), whereas
Delegation of Authority did not (b = .04, p > .05). Thus, the initial zero-order
relationship between organizational commitment and Delegation of Author-
ity (r = .38, p < .05) was not evident in the regression equation containing psy-
chological empowerment.

General Discussion
The research presented here provides support for the use of the LEBQ as a
tool for measuring empowering leader behaviors. Study 1 indicated that the
scales comprising the LEBQ have a stable factor structure. Study 2 found evi-
dence that the scales are positively related to the theoretically relevant out-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

312 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

come variables of psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, and organ-

izational commitment. In addition, tests of mediation in Study 2 indicated
that the LEBQ dimensions of leader behavior appear to fit well within the
nomological net of psychological empowerment. These results suggest that
the instrument has useful applications for both research and practice.
Although the results of the studies presented here were quite positive, sev-
eral limitations of the present research should be acknowledged. First,
although the confirmatory factor analyses were based on a relatively large
sample size, comprising a good cross section of functional areas and manage-
ment levels, all participants were drawn from a single organization. Future
researchers should cross validate responses to the LEBQ in different settings.
Second, future investigators should explore additional items to assess the
dimensions of empowering leader behaviors. The need for additional items is
most apparent for the Information Sharing dimension given that the revised
questionnaire contains only two items for that dimension. A final limitation
concerns the fact that Study 2 data were gathered using a single question-
naire. Although common method variance is always a potential problem in
survey research of this type, the differential mediation results with respect to
the two job attitudes would suggest that common method variance was not
unduly problematic in the current study.
The LEBQ was developed primarily for the purpose of prescribing strate-
gies and behaviors for managers trying to develop their empowerment skills.
For this reason, a more parsimonious model (e.g., three to four factors) was
not considered. That is, it was felt that the six-factor model provided manag-
ers with very prescriptive and useful feedback concerning the types of behav-
ior necessary to empower subordinates. This situation illustrates the diffi-
culty of balancing scientific and practical concerns when developing tools for
use in applied settings.
The status of research concerning empowerment recently has been char-
acterized as being in its infancy (Spreitzer, 1995). However, an increasing
number of empirical studies based on theoretical conceptualizations of
empowerment and aimed at understanding the antecedents and conse-
quences of psychological empowerment are beginning to appear in the litera-
ture (e.g., Parker & Price, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). With respect to the
theoretical antecedents of empowerment, it is hoped that the LEBQ will
prove to be a valuable instrument for increasing understanding of the leader’s
role in the empowerment process relative to other variables such as personal-
ity and work context factors. From an applied management perspective, this
type of research could help practitioners prioritize their efforts with respect to
different human resource interventions intended to increase empowerment in
the workplace. Finally, the LEBQ would appear to be a practical tool for pro-
viding feedback and coaching managers on their use of leader behaviors
associated with empowerment in organizational settings.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014

 KONCZAK ET AL. 313

References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-
77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of Management Ex-
ecutive, 3, 17-24.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 9, 21-28.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a
measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69-74.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evalua-
tions. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
Manz, C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Manz, C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York:
Berkley.
McConnell, J. (1994). On lemmings, managers, and leaders. Journal for Quality and Participa-
tion, 17, 126-129.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational com-
mitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The effects
of managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense of control over
decision making. Human Relations, 47, 911-927.
SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measure-
ment, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1986). Back to basics: Beyond perception. In R. N. Stern & S. McCarthy
(Eds.), International yearbook of organizational democracy for the study of participation,
co-operation and power: Volume III, The organizational practice of democracy (pp. 323-
331). New York: John Wiley.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpre-
tive” model on intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Wallace, G. W. (1993). Empowerment is work, not magic. Journal for Quality and Participation,
16, 10-14.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on October 16, 2014