Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory : A Comprehensive Approach for Developing and Validating Measurement. Hyung Joon Yoon

Transcription

1 Running head: LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY INVENTORY Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory : A Comprehensive Approach for Developing and Validating Measurement Hyung Joon Yoon The Pennsylvania State University Ji Hoon Song Oklahoma State University Wesley E. Donahue The Pennsylvania State University Katheryn Woodley The Pennsylvania State University Copyright 2010 Hyung Joon Yoon, Ji Hoon Song, Wesley E. Donahue, and Katheryn Woodley

2 2 Abstract This paper reports the psychometric evaluation of the Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory (LCI). The 32-item LCI was validated on a sample of 323 managers in the healthcare industry. Preliminary validity and reliability evidence of the LCI was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item-total correlations, Cronbach s alpha coefficients, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The four-factor leadership competency scale, comprised of supervisory/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 ensure the factor structure. Limitations, further research recommendations, and implications for Human Resource Development (HRD) were discussed. Keywords: leadership competency, leadership assessment, validation

3 3 Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory : A Comprehensive Approach for Developing and Validating Measurement Leadership development is a never ending concern of organizations, because the future of organizations depends on their leaders. Among many approaches, competency-based leadership development promotes more dynamic interaction between leaders and followers in the workplace (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Given the key role that competency 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, Colteryahn, Davis, Naughton, Rothwell, & Wellins, 2004; Dubois & Rothwell, 2004). According to Gilbert (1978), competency-based behaviors lead to worthy and valuable accomplishments in the workplace. In addition, 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). Identifying, developing, and selecting leaders has become crucial in human resource (HR) functions from a perspective of succession planning. Human resource management (HRM) and HRD functions in organizations often work together for leadership development initiatives. One of the most common approaches to leadership development is to use competency-based leadership development assessments so that HR practitioners can identify the leadership competencies or skill sets that current or potential leaders should have (Rodriguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). In a way, HRM can use the data as references for selection, and

4 4 HRD can use them for developmental purposes. Although leadership development scales are typically developed by researchers, consultancy companies in training and personnel selection, and the Federal government (Lentz, 1993), HR researchers/practitioners within specific organizations also develop their own scales, based on widely accepted leadership assessment tools. For example, in Lentz s (1993) study, 27 different leadership assessment tools were identified and analyzed to select the best scale for the organization. His study selected the Management Excellence Framework (MEF; Flanders & Utterback, 1985) of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM ) and developed a new measure based on the MEF for his departmental leadership model. Recently, similar to Lentz, Naquin and Holton (2006) also developed the Louisiana Managerial/Supervisory Survey (LMSS) based on the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF), which was also developed by OPM. The OPM leadership models were selected based on the following reasons: : (a) they are based on a wide range of leadership levels with more than 10,000 individuals, (b) OPM s competencies are inclusive and comprehensive, and (c) the use of the frameworks is in the public domain. Similar to Lentz s (1993) and Naquin and Holton s (2006) scales, the Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory (LCI) has been developed by Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education (PSUCaPE, 2007), expanding Wesley Donahue s (1996) preliminary research based on the OPM s model. Different from Lentz s (1993) and Naquin and Holton s (2006) studies, the 2007 version of the LCI incorporated the SCANS report for America 2000 (The Secretary s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1992) into the OPM s model. The LCI has been used by PSUCaPE to identify leadership training and development needs over the past two years and, in practice, has played a critical role in its

5 5 management training business. To date, 34 organizations have taken the LCI and over 75% of them purchased training 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 LCI s innovative features and contribution to adult/continuing education. Although PSUCaPE clients in both private and public sectors have reported very favorable results from the use of the LCI, no formal validation study of the LCI had been undertaken. In order to provide more convincing results to clients, a rigorous validation study must be conducted with the LCI. Purpose of the Study The first purpose of this paper is to report the process used for developing a leadership competency inventory. Because the LCI has been developed for both public and private sectors, the process may be applicable to both sectors. The second purpose of this paper is to examine the validity evidence of the LCI with the data collected. If the evidence turns out to be valid, the process of development and validation of the LCI may be duplicated in the HRD field by researchers and practitioners. Conceptual Framework The LCI incorporated competencies from studies conducted by the U.S. 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 The MEF (Flanders & Utterback, 1985) precedes the LEF, and the LEF is based on the

6 6 results of the research updates of the MEF. MEF was based on Howard and Bray s (1998) 30 year personnel assessment research 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 according to different levels of leadership positions, such as supervisors, managers, and executives. They were also designed and developed to be used as a part of Multipurpose Occupational Systems and Analysis Inventory-Closed Ended (MOSAIC) along with general, clerical, and technical competencies to identify the importance of the competencies and the requirement from each 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 % of the sample responded to the survey, and the results supported the existence of 22 competencies. The latest update of the LEF was made in In the 1998 version, OPM defined five categories as follows: leading change, leading people, building coalitions/communication, results driven, and business acumen. In addition, new competencies such as continual learning, political savvy, partnering, and entrepreneurship were added to the existing 22 competencies (OPM, 2007). The SCANS Report for America 2000 The LCI also integrated the findings from the SCANS report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992). The SCANS report was intended to help employers ensure that their employees are

7 7 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. There are two sets of large domains in the SCANS report. One is competencies; the other is foundational skills. Under the competencies domain, the following five categories are listed: resources, information, interpersonal, systems, and technology. Under the foundational skills domain, three categories are identified: basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities. Each of the categories has three to six sub-items; for example, allocates time, allocates money, allocates material and facility resources, and allocates human resources for the resources category, as well as responsibility, self-esteem, social, self-management, and integrity/honesty for the personal qualities category (SCANS, 1992). Development Process of the Leadership Competency Inventory Three experts in leadership development, Wesley Donahue, Katheryn Woodley, and John Park, synthesized and integrated both the LEF and the SCANS report into the LCI. They hold Ph.D.s in workforce education, organizational psychology, and adult education, respectively, and each of them has more than 20 years of leadership training experience in the public and private sectors. The experts decided to integrate the 1992 versions of the LEF and the SCANS report. Because the items in the 1992 version of the LEF were not presented within categories, the experts were able to include the items and supply category names following the integration process. Including the SCANS report was considered essential to the use of the LCI for populations composed 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 using an expert review process. For example, client orientation became customer focus

8 8 and the behavioral description was changed from Anticipates and meets the needs of clients; achieves quality end-products; is committed to improving services (OPM, 2007, p. 244) to Actively seeks 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 in step 2, they integrated some of the items from the SCANS report into one competency. For example, uses computers to process information, reading, writing, speaking, listening, arithmetic, and mathematics became computer and basic literacy with the description, proficient in using personal computer and learning new software; reads, writes, and performs mathematical operations; speaks and listens with comprehension. In this way, the experts developed eight competency titles, such as computer and basic literacy, conceptual thinking, learning and information, resource usage, understanding systems, and resource management. Step 3. The experts also reviewed the latest study of the LEF that was conducted in 1988 (OPM, 2007). The following additional competencies were identified: strategic thinking and leading change. OPM used leading change as one of the categories, however, the experts viewed it as an individual competency and defined it 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 five-category model, as follows: personal mastery, managing processes, managing resources, leadership, and managing relationships. This proved a very workable and understandable model, however, the model had not been subjected to validation research. This step was seen as important to confirming the value of the LCI for different industries.

9 9 Step 5. The LCI was reviewed by three additional PSUCaPE faculty members who have been providing management training for over 20 years, and they were in agreement about the soundness of the LCI competencies and the five-category model. Step 6. The tool was pilot tested by PSUCaPE faculty members with their clients for the appropriateness in wording of items. Based upon feedback received, minor editorial modifications were completed to assure understandability, clarity, and appropriateness. Validation Method Participants A total of 323 individuals from 11 healthcare-related organizations were drawn from a larger data set, because the data from the healthcare industry only satisfied the minimum number for factor analyses requirements. The individuals were supervisors or managers. Nine of the organizations were hospitals, which fell under the health care and social assistance industry, according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS; Office of Management and Budget, 2007). The other two organizations were nursing homes, thus we considered these organizations as healthcare industry, although they were under the real estate and rental and leasing category. In terms of organizational sizes, 42 (13.0%), 41 (12.7%), 48 (14.9%), and 192 (59.4%) people came from organizations with 1-100, , , and employees, respectively. The data did not include gender, age, or ethnic background information, because the LCI has been conducted for a practical purpose, and asking the information was unnecessary at the point of administration. Instrument The LCI has two parallel forms: Form I for members of the group for whom the assessment is targeted and Form M for managers who supervise members of the target

10 10 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 LCI also has four openended questions, related to other important competencies, prior training and development experience, job responsibilities, and current organizational challenges. For the purpose this study, we omitted the answers from the four open-ended questions. Respondents were required to answer the degree of importance and development need for each of the 32 competency items by using a five-point Likert scale. There was no prior validity and reliability evidence regarding the LCI, other than face validity. Procedure The LCI packet contains administration instructions, 20 forms for individuals, and 5 forms for management. Before actually using the LCI, three faculty members of Penn State Continuing and Professional Education trained staff and faculty members in three locations across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so that they were prepared to administer the LCI appropriately. The process included several steps, such as the client s appropriateness for taking the LCI, consultation with a full-time faculty member, explaining steps, helping clients as needed, and producing reports (2007, PSUCaPE). The 323 cases used for the current validation study were developed using this procedure. Data Analysis The decision was made to use the development need data for the current research. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was implemented using SPSS We used the principal axis factoring followed by promax rotation, because promax rotation is generally conducted when the factors might be correlated (Stevens, 2002). Eigenvalues (Kaiser, 1960) was used in determining

11 11 the number of factors. For the reliability of the LCI, Cronbach s alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) was used. Cronbach s 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 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 itemtotal 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 based on collected data (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004). In order to determine the soundness of the model fit, factor loadings and t- values were examined. In addition, the following 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: χ 2 (Chi-square), 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 Based on the EFA, a four-factor structure was identified, and the solution accounts for

12 12 58% of the variance. We named the four identified factors as supervisory/managerial (SM) competencies, organizational leadership (OL), personal mastery (PM), and resource leadership (RL) after considering the characteristics of the items under each factor. Table 1 shows the factor loadings for each factor using the descriptive labels from the LCI. Table 1. Promax Rotated Factor Matrix Showing Factor Loadings for the 32 LCI competencies 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) Factor 1 Supervisory/ Managerial Competencies Factor 2 Organizational Leadership Factor 3 Personal Mastery Factor 4 Resource Management

13 13 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 Percent of Variance Note. The number following each competency indicates the original item number. Factor loadings greater than.40 are shown in boldface. In general, factor loadings of.40 or greater are used as a criteria for the inclusion of items to a certain factor. All items were larger than.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.38, which is very close to.40. According the EFA and the above discussion, SM consisted of 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 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 oral communications, written communications, conceptual thinking, interpersonal competence, learning and information, self responsibility and management, and understands systems. Lastly, RL included technical

14 14 competence, resource management, computer and basic literacy, and resource usage. The four identified factors reflect 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, although supervisor and managers did not appear to be separated. 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 three experts aforementioned. For the RL, the SCANS report also had resources and technology categories (SCANS, 1992), and PSUCaPE (2007) had the managing resources category. These findings suggest that categories of leadership competencies can be adjusted according to target populations. Reliability Test Table 2 shows the summary of results from Cronbach s alpha coefficient test and corrected item-total correlations. Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations with Subscales and Total Scale Variable M SD 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) Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in a Subscale) Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in the Main Scale)

15 15 Teamwork and Cooperation (20) Influencing and Negotiating (21) Customer Focus (24) Management Controls (25) Supervisory/Managerial Competencies (Cronbach s α =.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) Organizational Leadership (Cronbach s α =.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 (Cronbach s α =.885) Computer and Basic Literacy (1) Technical Competence (6) Resource Usage (7) Resource Management (17) Resource leadership (Cronbach s α =.776) Leadership Competency (Cronbach s α =.955) Note. The number following each competency indicates the original item number. Cronbach s alpha coefficients for each factor ranged from.776 to.924. The coefficient for the overall scale was.955. This explains that the reliability for newly defined factors and the overall scale are acceptable (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). The corrected item-total correlations for each item

16 16 in the LCI ranged from.435 to.735. An item-total correlation of 0.3 or less is often used for determining the cut-off point (Wong, Chan, & Lau, 2008). Therefore, the results of the corrected item-total correlation were also found to be acceptable. 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 analyses were performed. First, higher-order CFA uses the four latent factors that are identified as sub-factors of overall leadership competency. Then general CFA processes 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.50 to.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. Table 3. Single order CFA results Model df 2 2 / df GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR 4 domains ** 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 data sets (GFI =.82). Furthermore, two indices of error term detections support a small magnitude of the residuals of the proposed measurement model (RMSEA =.068 and SRMR =.055). Although the chi-square estimates were statistically significant, which indicates the lack of appropriate fit between proposed

17 17 measurement model and collected data sets, a fairly large sample size was used (n = 323) in this research (Song & Chermack, 2008). In addition, several model fit indices confirmed the statistically acceptable model fit to data to provide acceptable factor structure of the proposed measurement model. Moreover, a higher-order CFA analysis was conducted to ensure uni-dimensionality of the developed 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 were illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Standardized factor loading estimates of a higher order CFA Note. T-value estimates of all standardized factor-loading estimates ranges from 8.36 to 13.82

18 18 According to the results of the higher-order CFA analysis, chi-square estimates were repeatedly statistically significant (χ 2 [460] = ; χ 2 / df = 2.52; p <.001), due to the sensitivity of the chi-square to the large sample size (Song & Chermack, 2008). Additional indices provide statistically acceptable model-fit estimates (GFI =.82; CFI =.97; NNFI =.97); and the small magnitude of error term estimates also supports that the factor structure of the proposed measurement model is well defined (RMSEA =.069; SRMR =.058). According to the two separate CFAs 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 all private and public sector organizations, 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 s 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, Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). Thus, there is a possibility that the LCI can be used for any populations regardless of industry. There remains a need for continued research into the LCI, including further validation and updating, given some of its limitations. For example, the current study was limited to the

19 19 health care industry and thus the four LCI factors have been validated only for this population. In addition, only the development needs data has been used for this study, even though the importance data exists. The factor structure may turn out differently with the importance data. Moreover, the fact that two fundamental studies for the LCI were conducted in 1992 raises a validity argument, even though the competencies are reviewed by experts with contemporary perspectives. Therefore, three directions for future research can be suggested. First, further validation research is necessary to ensure whether or not the four defined factors are valid for other major industries such as manufacturing and public service. Second, the use of the importance data is desirable, because it will cross-validate the LCI s factor structure. Finally, it may be worthwhile to re-assess and update the competencies by reflecting on the most recent changes in society and the workplace. From a broader perspective, HRD researchers/practitioners should conduct development and validation research based on their own unique contexts, since organizational culture and needs vary widely from organization to organization. Contributions to New Knowledge in HRD The present study contributes to the growing HRD knowledge base related to the development and validation of leadership competency assessment tools. This LCI validation study exhibited a more comprehensive approach by integrating the LEF (OPM, 1993) and the SCANS report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992), which included basic skills for the workforce. This study added one more perspective basic skills to Naquin and Holton s (2006) study. OPM ensures that their competency study results will continue to be available to the public so that the competency models can contribute to other organizations (Rodriguez, et al., 2002), and the SCANS report is also in the public domain. By reviewing this paper, HRD

20 20 researchers/practitioners will be able to easily develop and validate their own, sound leadership assessments geared toward their specific purposes. Developing, validating, and using an appropriate leadership assessment tool for a particular context increases the effectiveness and efficiency of any subsequent leadership training and development. Without assessment, individuals and organizations are challenged to define gaps in terms of developmental and placement needs. As Naquin and Holton (2006) noted, a leadership competency assessment tool can be used for needs assessment in addition to the purpose of designing succession-planning strategies, designing career development opportunities, and recognizing performance expectations. Although Naquin and Holton (2006) mentioned that There is no other source of this information [referring to using existing leadership competency measures] (p. 163), it has been over 10 years since PSUCaPE initiated the efforts to develop and implement a competency-based leadership assessment tool and leadership development programs. Therefore, this paper can serve as a critical resource for developing a leadership competency measure in HRD. References 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. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, doi: /j tb00391.x

21 21 Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, doi: /BF Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 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), doi: / (73) 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 ) Dubois, D. D. & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Competency-based human resource management. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Flanders, L. R., & Utterback, D. (1985). The management excellence inventory: A tool for management development. Public Administration Review, 45, doi: / Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.

22 22 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), doi: / (95) Gregory, D. J., & Park, R. K. (1992, January). Occupational study of federal executives, managers, & supervisors: An application of the Multipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis Inventory Closed 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. Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, doi: / Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Lentz, L. (1993). Development of a management skills model for the Department of Labor and Industry. Unpublished report, Harrisburgh, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. 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), doi: /

23 23 Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Office of Management and Budget. (2007). North American industry classification system. Washington, DC: Author. Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education. (2007). Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory : Administration Instructions. University Park, PA: Author. Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education. (2008). Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory. University Park, PA: Author. 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, doi: /hrm Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1992). Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor. Song, J. H., & Chermack, T. J. (2008). Assessing the psychometric properties of the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire in the Korea business context. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(2), doi: /j x Spenser L. M., & Spenser S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. 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, doi: /

24 24 Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2007). Delegated examining operations handbook: A guide for federal agency examining offices. Washington, DC. Retrieved from 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, doi: /PM.38.2.b