Journals / Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 33

RE-ASSESSMENT OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR TAXONOMY CONSTRUCTS: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION ANALYSIS

LİDERLİK DAVRANIŞI BOYUTLARININ YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: ÖLÇEK GEÇERLEME ÇALIŞMASI

Pages
9–32
Publication Date
2019-03-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings of this survey revealed that 23 items-three factors-LBT model has better fit for the managers of both manufacturing and service industry in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Despite of the huge number of leadership behavior description measures in the literature, construct assessment and validation studies are very rare in literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The survey was conducted on 445 middle level managers of 188 large-scale firms operating in manufactory industry and 550 managers operating in service industry in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of this survey revealed that 23 items-three factors-LBT model has better fit for the managers of both manufacturing and service industry in Turkey.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Liderlik davranışı sınıflaması · Görev odaklı liderlik · İlişki odaklı liderlik

Abstract

Despite of the huge number of leadership behavior description measures in the literature, construct assessment and validation studies are very rare in literature. In this sense, this survey, which focused on the construct re-assessment and validation of leadership behavior taxonomy, is expected to contribute to leadership literature. Yukl’s Leadership Behavior Taxonomy (LBT) is focused on and the constructs of LBT have been evaluated in terms of content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and predictive validity in this study. The survey was conducted on 445 middle level managers of 188 large-scale firms operating in manufactory industry and 550 managers operating in service industry in Turkey. Data obtained from 445 middle level managers operating in manufacturing industry and 550 managers operating in service industry were analyzed through the SPSS and AMOS statistical packet programs. The findings of this survey revealed that 23 items-three factors-LBT model has better fit for the managers of both manufacturing and service industry in Turkey.

Özet

Literatürde, liderlik davranışının ölçümüyle ilgili çok sayıda çalışma mevcut olmasına rağmen, liderlik davranışı yapılarını ele alan ölçek geçerleme çalışmalarına nadiren yer verilmektedir. Bu kapsamda, literatürde en çok kullanılan ölçeklerden biri olan Yukl’un Liderlik Davranışı Sınıflaması (Leadership Behavior Taxonomy-LBT) ölçeğini, içerik geçerliliği, yakınsama geçerliliği, ayrışma geçerliliği ve öngörü geçerliliği bağlamında yeniden değerlendiren bu çalışmanın literatüre katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir. Çalışma Türkiye’de üretim sektöründe faaliyet gösteren 188 büyük ölçekli firmanın 445 orta düzey yöneticisi ile hizmet sektöründe çalışan 550 yönetici üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Türkiye’deki üretim ve hizmet sektörü yöneticilerinden elde edilen veriler SPSS ve AMOS istatistik programları kullanılarak değerlendirilmiş ve analiz bulguları, liderlik davranışıyla ilgili 23 sorulu 3 boyutlu bir yapı ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZŞAHİN, M. (2019). RE-ASSESSMENT OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR TAXONOMY CONSTRUCTS: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION ANALYSIS. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 33, 9–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/26036

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Acar, A Z., & Zehir, C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional business capabilities measurement instrument. Journal of Transnational Management, 14(3), 215-240.
  2. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and Leadership: An Examination of the Nine-Factor Full-Range Leadership Theory Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
  3. Aragon-Correa, J.A., Garcia-Moreales, V.J. & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and Organizational Learning’s Role on Innovation and Performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, pp.349-359.
  4. Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1991). The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic and Advanced Manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates. Avolio, B.J., Reichard, R.J., Hannah, S.T., Walumbwa, F.O & Chan, A. (2009). A Meta-analytic Review of Leadership Impact, Research: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp.764-784.
  5. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.W. & Yammarino, F.L. (1991). Leading in the 1990’s: Towards Understanding the Four I’s of Transformational Leadership, Journal of European Industrial Training, 15 (4), 9-16.
  6. Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W. & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and Moderating Role of Structural Distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp. 951-968.
  7. Bagozzi, R.P. & Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assesing Construct Validity in Organizational Researc. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
  8. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan. Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, New York: Free Press.
  9. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press.
  10. Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: Wiley. Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2003). Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), pp.554-571.
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 1