You are on page 1of 12

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, Cronbach’s 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

generally applied to management of organizational tasks and processes. More recently. 27 leadership assessment tools were identified and analyzed to select “the best” scale for the organization. Although leadership development scales are typically developed by researchers. Flanders & Utterback. Dubois & Rothwell. Given the key role that competency identification and development plays in performance improvement. 1995).. An advantage that competencybased leadership development has over other approaches is that it promotes dynamic interaction between leaders and followers in the workplace (Dansereau. & Noel. while others add feedback from direct reports. Cashman.. Instruments to assess an individual’s leadership “style” owe much of their development to the behavioral studies conducted in the 1950s. 2002). specifically chapters 2. & Gowing. 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. The primary practical use of such behavioral or competency-based instruments is for increased self-awareness and subsequent leadership development. 1958). primarily as competency-based.1002/jls . Given the range of leadership theories. 1973. According to Gilbert (1978). and validation of a large number of psychometric instruments to measure leadership practices and potential. Stogdill & Coons. & Graen. 1957. Gregory. attitude. 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. peers. Instruments of more current vintage that have been extensively researched include the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio. The OPM leadership models (MEF and LEF) were selected as the basis for Penn State’s Leadership Competency Inventory 40 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. p. behavior. 2004). and situational fit. Patel. 1998. as is the part they play in individual and group development planning. and Leslie and Fleenor (1998). 1985). Office of Personnel (OPM. and customers. supervisors. Eichinger and Lombardo (2003). and used this as the basis for developing a new measure for his departmental leadership model. the federal government. developed by the U. 2001). 1990) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner & Kouzes. 9). 69). it is not surprising to find numerous instruments designed to measure aspects of capacity.As Peter Drucker often mentioned. Many organizations use assessments of various types to identify the leadership competencies or skill sets that current or potential leaders should possess (Rodriguez. 1993). Bennis. Drotter. leaders in organizations have known that “if you can’t measure it. 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. Naquin and Holton (2006) developed the Louisiana Managerial/ Supervisory Survey (LMSS). you can’t manage it” (Drucker & Garvin. The literature in the domain of leadership research is replete with studies of the development. use. Graen & Uhl-Bien. 360-degree feedback measures. Lentz selected the Management Excellence Framework (MEF). 1988. personality. Some of the behavioral and competencybased instruments assess only self-perception (self-report of behavior). 2004. and HR practitioners within specific organizations on their own. and Goldsmith (2000). competency-based behavior leads to worthy and valuable accomplishments in the workplace. Bright. are given in Carter. Many illustrations of the development and use of such instruments. 3. There are a variety of instruments designed for multisource feedback on various leadership characteristics and behaviors. Some assessments are rooted in competency models while others have their roots in the dimensions of the underlying theory. in Lentz’s study (1993). Through measurement of leadership competencies. The use of psychometric instruments as part of needs assessment for leadership development is well documented. This maxim. can also be applied to how one manages his or her leadership development. based on OPM’s Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF). On the basis of this study. when dimensions of “task and structure” and “consideration and support” were examined (e. and 6. scales are also developed by consultancy companies in training and personnel selection.g. Tannenbaum & Schmidt. For example.S. organizations also gain data useful in selecting persons for leadership roles and in formulating leadership development plans and programs. A description of the key features of some of the more popular tools can be found in Morical (1999).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The LCI incorporated competencies from studies conducted by the federal government. According to Gregory and Park (1992). by 49% of the sample. Similar to the development of Lentz’s and Naquin and Holton’s scales (1993 and 2006. In a 1998 update of the LEF.1002/jls 41 . At the time of this writing. and executives.000 individuals spanning multiple leadership levels. leading people. in practice. Although PSUCaPE clients in both private and public sectors have reported very favorable results from use of the LCI. OPM conducted a leadership competency study with a stratified. the critical incident interview technique. no formal validation study had been undertaken. LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK Purpose of the Study Two aims guide this study. 2007). Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. 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. May 7. managers. They were also designed to be used as part of the Multipurpose Occupational Systems and Analysis Inventory-Closed Ended (MOSAIC). This inventory included general. and (3) the models are in the public domain. The MEF was based on Howard and Bray’s 30-year personnel assessment research (1988) on 26 behavioral dimensions in AT&T (as cited in Donahue.664 executives. reviewing the development process of any assessment is essential for researchers to ensure the validity and soundness of the assessment as well. (2) OPM’s competencies are inclusive and comprehensive. The MEF had two major domains for the 22 competencies: effective characteristics and management functions. PSUCaPE received an Applied Research award in 2009 from University Continuing Education Association (UCEA) for the LCI’s innovative features and its contribution to adult and continuing education. If the evidence turns out to be valid. 1996). results JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.(LCI) because (1) they were developed with input from more than 10. 1996). The LCI was developed by faculty members of Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education (PSUCaPE. the OPM added new competencies and grouped them into five categories: leading change. Bergstrom. building coalitions/communication. & Office of Executive and Management Policy [OEMP]. More than 75% of them subscribed to development programs based on the results (E. it has played a critical role in management development business. respectively). 1985) and is based on the results of the research updates of the MEF.S. 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. managers. The response. the process of development and validation of the LCI may be duplicated by researchers and practitioners. The LCI has been used by PSUCaPE to identify leadership training and development needs over the past two years. the other is the SCANS report for America 2000 (SCANS. 1992). the LCI was developed following preliminary research using the OPM model (Donahue. Three methods were used to identify the 22 competencies of the MEF: a questionnaire. and technical competencies in an effort to identify the importance of the competencies for every occupation in the federal government (OPM. U. a rigorous validation study of the LCI must be conducted. 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. 34 organizations have used the LCI to assess the leadership development needs of their supervisors and managers. 2009). the 2007 version of the LCI was expanded to include competencies identified in the SCANS report for America 2000 (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS]. supported the existence of 22 competencies. In addition. 1985). 1993). the LCI. 2007). personal communication. and supervisors in the federal government in 1992. and focus group interviews with panels of supervisors and managers (Flanders & Utterback. Unlike Lentz’s and Naquin and Holton’s studies. Human Resources Development Group [HRDG]. To have greater confidence in the results provided to clients. 1992). One is the Leadership Effectiveness Framework (LEF. random sample of 20. clerical.

and John Park. necessary skills from the items under each category of the SCANS report. 2007). interpersonal relationship building. Wesley Donahue. Each categories has three to six subitems. 1992). The personal qualities category includes responsibility. interpersonal. managing processes. Including leading change as a competency was a variation from the OPM model. p. is committed to improving services” (OPM. arithmetic. social. writing. self-management. and entrepreneurship (OPM. and performs mathematical operations. and mathematics was modified to computer and basic literacy and defined as “proficient in using personal computer and learning new software. uses computers to process information. This step was seen as important to confirming the value of the LCI for diverse industries. and processes” (PSUCaPE. 2007. respectively. appropriate skills as well as to assist educators in developing the skills that students would require for successful performance in the modern workplace (SCANS. and each has more than 20 years of leadership training experience for both public and private sector organizations. Through an iterative process. Katheryn Woodley. p. and managing relationships. For example. understanding systems. Step 3. information. and personal qualities. the developers used their judgment to place the 32 items into a fivecategory model: personal mastery. and the behavioral description was changed from “anticipates and meets the needs of clients. 244) to “actively seeks customer input. 1992). organizational psychology.1002/jls . managing resources. Development Process of the Leadership Competency Inventory The LCI was developed by three experts in leadership development. products. for example. The experts reviewed the SCANS report and identified additional. allocates material and facility resources. and integrity/honesty (SCANS. and allocates human resources. Step 4. leadership. systems. and resource management. This proved a very workable and understandable model. the experts chose to define categories following the integration process. thinking skills. They hold Ph. There are five categories included within the competencies domain: resources. continuously seeks to improve the quality of services. learning and information. speaking. To ensure consistency with the modified 22 items of the LCI. self responsibility and management. three categories are identified: basic skills. but it had not been subjected to validation research. champions organizational change” (PSUCaPE. The nomenclature and behavioral descriptions of the 22 LEF competencies were modified 42 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. it was defined as “leads organizational transformation and change efforts. For example. 3). Within the foundational skills domain. In the LCI. This brought the total number of competencies to 32. 2007. achieves quality endproducts. political savvy. listening. and technology. reads. p. and business acumen. the experts identified two additional competencies for the LCI: strategic thinking and leading change. resource usage. The developers of the LCI added selected competencies from the SCANS report to the LEF competencies. The additional competencies were continual learning.D. ensures that customer needs are met. the resources category has the subitems allocates time. which used it as a category.driven. 2007). to permit assessment of a broader base of competencies. Including the SCANS report was considered essential to using the LCI with populations of individuals not yet in formal managerial positions. 3). speaks and listens with comprehension. The process of integration was as follows: Step 1. Rather than use the competency categories defined for the 1998 LEF.” This process resulted in eight competencies: computer and basic literacy. and adult education. self-esteem. using an expert review process. 1992) was intended to help employers ensure that their employees are equipped with up-to-date. partnering. writes. reading. conceptual thinking. Step 2. some of the items from the SCANS report were consolidated into one competency. After reviewing the results of the LEF study conducted in 1998 (OPM. allocates money. THE SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000 The SCANS Report for America 2000 (SCANS. There are two large domains in the SCANS report: competencies and foundational skills. client orientation became customer focus. This team elected to integrate the 1992 versions of the LEF and the SCANS report. 2007.s in workforce education.

In terms of organizational sizes. To test reliability. In completing the LCI. 20 forms for individuals (I) and 5 forms for managers (M). and Form “M” (manager) for people who supervise members of the target population. 1951) was used. The eigenvalue criterion (Kaiser. Typically. PROCEDURE Validation Method PARTICIPANTS A total of 323 individuals from 11 health care–related organizations were drawn from a larger dataset.7%). level and include feedback on individual competencies as well as competency clusters.Step 5. Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency determines the degree to which each item measures a latent factor or construct (Crocker & Algina. The individuals were supervisors or managers. because this population exclusively satisfied the minimum number required for factor analyses. Nine of the organizations were hospitals. and 1. The tool was pilot-tested with a sample of clients to confirm its soundness. which. the packets include administration instructions. The other two organizations were nursing homes. age. respectively. which.000. including two of the three LCI developers. 101–500. were considered health care organizations for purposes of this study. and they were in agreement about the soundness of the LCI competencies and the five-category model.and postadministration meetings with the faculty-administrator team. In addition to the internal consistency reliability test.000 employees. 1986).The present study did not analyze responses to the four open-ended questions. and producing summary reports (PSUCaPE. The coefficient of items for each factor and the overall scale was examined.001–5. clarity. As part of their preparation for using the LCI. and current organizational challenges). although classified by NAICS under the real estate and rental and leasing category. rather than individual. The data did not include gender. from confirming that the LCI would be appropriate for the client.1002/jls 43 . Step 6. 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. highly experienced PSUCaPE faculty members. 2007). 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. prior training and development experience. Results are reported at the group. and 192 (59. 42 (13.0. 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. according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS. processing the results. The LCI was reviewed by three additional. are under the health care and social assistance industry. 2002). Their feedback led to minor changes in wording of the competencies and definitions to ensure understandability. The process includes several steps. The LCI also has four open-ended questions (related to other important competencies. 1960) was used to determine the number of factors. The decision was made to use the development need data for the current research. and appropriateness. 41 (12. Office of Management and Budget. 48 (14.4%) people came from organizations with 1–100. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach. through pre. 2007). Principal axis factoring followed by promax rotation was used because promax rotation is generally conducted when the factors might be correlated (Stevens. 501–1. INSTRUMENT The LCI is administered to members of client organizations by a PSUCaPE faculty-administrator team using LCI packets. job responsibilities. This study used the data obtained via Form I.0%).9%). Respondents indicate the degree of importance and development need for each of the 32 competency items by using a fivepoint Likert scale. the impact of each JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was implemented using SPSS 17. people expected to be involved in LCI administration were trained by three experienced PSUCaPE faculty members.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Lisrel 8. The corrected item-total correlation for each item in LCI was calculated. Lastly. and creative thinking. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each factor ranged from 0. Results and Discussions DETERMINATION OF UNDERLYING CONSTRUCTS THROUGH EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS From the EFA. the results of the corrected itemtotal correlation were also found to be acceptable. personal mastery (PM). 1978). self-direction. The corrected item-total correlations for each item in the LCI ranged from 0. resource management. Thompson. problem solving.40. Using this approach. decisiveness. management controls. CFA is the most appropriate approach to measure the internal structure of the relations between proposed latent variables and observed measurement items (Hair. managers. customer focus. and PSUCaPE (2007) had the managing resources category. Chan. 1998. 1986). SM and OL may reflect the conception of the MEF. 2006). PSUCaPE (2007) also had the personal mastery category. which is very close to 0.38. the SCANS report also had resources and technology categories (SCANS.776 to 0. organizational leadership (OL). Kline. Babin. financial management and budgeting. interpersonal competence. leadership and coaching.40 or greater are used as a criterion for including an item in a certain factor. factor loadings and t-values were examined. 2008). SM consisted of 12 competencies: teamwork and cooperation. flexibility and resilience. 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). a four-factor structure was identified. human performance management. influencing and negotiating. computer and basic literacy.1002/jls . & Tatham.item on the reliability of the corresponding factor and the whole scale was evaluated. The four identified factors are reflective of some prior studies. factor loadings of 0. Items under the PM factor were similar to items under the foundation skills domain in the SCANS report (SCANS. CFI (comparative fit index). RL included four: technical competence. leading change.735. To determine the soundness of the model fit. Black. and resource usage.3 or less is often used for determining the cut-off point (Wong. An item-total correlation of 0. vision. This gives confidence that the reliability for newly defined factors and the overall scale are acceptable (Briggs & Cheek. 44 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. GFI (goodness of fit index). RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation). The competencies of the MEF were grouped into three leadership hierarchies: supervisors. the solution accounts for 58% of the variance. For the RL.924.955. The coefficient for the overall scale was 0. external awareness . Therefore. and resource leadership (RL). 1985). written communications. OL included nine: strategic thinking and planning. which was determined by the developers of the LCI. NNFI (non-normed fit index). 2005. In general. All items were larger than 0. 2004). The primary purpose of the CFA is to identify how well measured variables represent the proposed factors on the basis of collected data (Byrne. After considering the characteristics of the items under each factor. the managing diverse workforce item could be included in the supervisory/managerial competencies because the factor loading is 0.435 to 0. and understands systems. 1992). 1992).80 to assess the model fit.40 except for the managing diverse workforce item under the supervisory/ managerial competencies factor. 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. & Lau. Anderson. and managing diverse workforce. even though the present study did not separate results for managers and supervisors. conflict management. learning and information. the four identified factors were named as supervisory/managerial (SM) competencies. interpersonal relationship building. RELIABILIT Y TEST Table 2 shows the summary of results from Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test and corrected item-total correlations. conceptual thinking. self-responsibility and management. However. These findings may suggest that categories of leadership competencies can be adjusted according to target populations. Table 1 shows the factor loadings for each factor using the descriptive labels from the LCI. In addition. PM consists of seven: oral communications. and executives (Flanders & Utterback. planning and evaluation. technology management . and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual).

994 Factor 3: Personal Mastery 0.264 Factor 4: Resource Management Ϫ0.056 0.044 0.040 0.108 Ϫ0.267 0.214 0.058 Ϫ0.135 0.198 0.095 0.796 0.160 0.379 Ϫ0.550 0.497 0.589 42.194 0.366 0.027 Ϫ0 078 0.121 0.652 0.124 Ϫ0.080 0.238 6.179 Ϫ0.084 0.128 0.182 Ϫ0.047 0. Promax Rotated Factor Matrix Showing Factor Loadings for the 32 LCI Competencies Factor 1: Supervisory/Managerial Competencies 0.682 0. .019 0. Factor loadings greater than 0.618 0.284 Ϫ0.078 0.072 0.157 Ϫ0.041 0.390 0.94 0.172 Ϫ0.710 0.491 0.322 0.616 0.289 0.586 0.228 0.527 0.192 0.063 2.191 Ϫ0.064 Ϫ0.794 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.016 0.133 Ϫ0.128 0.258 Ϫ0.133 0.007 Ϫ0.800 0.240 0.203 0.018 Ϫ0.099 0.080 13.133 Ϫ0.174 0.036 Ϫ0.092 0.601 0.064 0.467 Factor 2: Organizational Leadership 0.685 5.165 Ϫ0.448 0.548 0.202 Ϫ0.221 Ϫ0.661 0.037 Ϫ0.646 0.000 0.002 0.144 0.232 0.466 0.113 Ϫ0.511 0.718 0.055 Ϫ0 015 Ϫ0 080 0.058 Ϫ0.503 0.283 Ϫ0.450 Ϫ0.648 0.533 0.627 0.135 0.126 0.40 are shown in boldface.065 0.680 0.028 0.033 Ϫ0.096 0.443 1.Table 1.027 Ϫ0.735 0.054 Ϫ0.460 0.090 Ϫ0.274 1.153 0.054 0.214 3.146 0.547 0.214 0.040 0.113 Ϫ0.090 0.186 Ϫ0.013 0.068 0.798 0.029 0.558 0.035 Ϫ0.115 Ϫ0.301 0.004 0.050 Ϫ0.

661 0.873 2.718 2.546 0.670 0.203 1.540 0.714 0.625 0.885) Computer and basic literacy (1) Technical competence (6) Resource usage (7) Resource management (17) Resource Leadership (Cronbach’s a ϭ 0.614 0.686 0.273 1.122 0.503 0.019 1.713 0.592 0.583 0.615 0.144 1.658 Supervisory/Managerial Competencies (Cronbach’s a ϭ 0.960 2.752 0.613 2.468 Organizational Leadership (Cronbach’s a ϭ 0.786 2.435 0.082 1.220 1.677 0.882 2.660 0.131 1.667 0.093 1.095 1.652 0.793 2.691 0.613 0.653 0.635 .663 0.510 0.158 1.955) Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number.963 2.159 Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in a Subscale) 0.710 0.251 1.433 2. 2.129 1.684 2.689 0.646 0.659 0.997 1.267 1.972 3.677 0.603 0. and Item-Total Correlations With Subscales and Total Scale Corrected Item-Total Correlation (in the Main Scale) 0.127 2.663 0.180 1.588 SD 1.722 0.681 0.972 2.183 1.082 1.762 2.160 0.616 0.820 2.100 1.762 2.705 0.122 1.367 1.842 2.650 2.746 1.873 2.658 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 (Cronbach’s a ϭ 0.786 2.916 2.676 0.645 0.129 1.213 1.650 0.202 1.640 0.746 2.514 3.059 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 2.661 0.588 0.705 0.615 0.641 2.644 0.375 0.689 0.Table 2.735 0.777 2.192 1.152 2.228 1.085 1.690 1.776) Leadership Competency (Cronbach’s a ϭ 0. Standard Deviations.617 0.988 2.192 1.696 0.597 0.624 0. Means.443 2.583 0.704 0.685 0.627 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) 2.600 0.157 1.595 0.545 0.211 1.632 2.

1002/jls 47 .00). & Mullen.055). two indices of error term detections support a small magnitude of the residuals of the proposed measurement model (RMSEA ϭ 0. chi-square estimates were repeatedly statistically significant (␹2 [460] ϭ 1162. and the results of the general CFA show that all factor loadings were statistically acceptable (factor loadings ranged from 0. or governmental” (p.CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS According to the theoretical properties of the LCI and the results of the exploratory analyses.055 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.001). t-values ranged from 8.97.97).82). 360). which indicates that the factor structure model of the proposed measurement scales is valid.. the LCI was designed to be used with any private and public sector organization. According to the two separate CFA results. four latent factors were defined to measure leadership competency areas. the literature suggests that there is a set of common leadership competencies that are appropriate for any type of organization. df 458 ␹2 1134.82 CFI 0. higher-order CFA uses the four latent factors that are identified as subfactors of overall leadership competency. OPM also ensured that their leadership competencies are relevant to models outside of the government (Rodriguez et al. & Mullen. General CFA processes then use the 32 items that measure each of the proposed latent factors.068 and SRMR ϭ 0. Additional indices provide statistically acceptable model-fit estimates (GFI ϭ 0. All standardized factor loadings are illustrated in Figure 1. However. 2002). 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. “In general. CFI ϭ 0.97 RMSEA 0. whether it be for-profit. 2006.50 to 0. 2005). several model fit indices confirmed a statistically acceptable fit of data to the factor structure of the proposed measurement model. As a next step. Kline. SRMR ϭ 0. the model fit of the four latent factors of leadership competency inventory with the 32 items was confirmed to be appropriate. because of the sensitivity of the chi-square to the large sample size (Hooper.97 NNFI 0. there is a possibility that the LCI can be useful with a variety of organization types. The chi-square estimates were statistically significant. because a fairly large sample size was used (n ϭ 323) in this research (Hooper. Coughlan. non-profit.069. general model-fit estimates were statistically acceptable in terms of well-defined model-data fit. a higher-order CFA analysis was conducted to ensure unidimensionality of the leadership competency inventory. p Ͻ 0. According to Thach and Thompson (2007). Moreover. based on the rationale that the four proposed latent factors are measuring general leadership competencies (Hair et al. According to the results.068 SRMR 0.058). even though it is based on research originally conducted on federal government populations. First..47 GFI 0. ␹2/df ϭ 2.82. In addition. Thus.77.52. NNFI ϭ 0. Table 3. Factor loadings were examined. 2008).00.90 to 14. which indicates lack of appropriate fit between proposed measurement model and collected datasets. and the small magnitude of error term estimates also supports the factor structure of the proposed measurement model being well defined (RMSEA ϭ 0. two stages of CFA analysis were performed. According to the results of the higher-order CFA analysis. Single-Order CFA Results Model 4 domains Note: ** Ͻ0. Table 3 shows the soundness of the model-fit in relation to the data set.89** ␹2/df 4. Furthermore. Coughlan. 2008). Approximately 82% of variances and covariances of the proposed measurement model could be explained by the collected datasets (GFI ϭ 0. Donahue (1996) confirmed that the OPM model is applicable to private industry with a modification. Beyond its efficacy with health care populations. using the chi-square test of model fit for this research may not be appropriate.01.

(2004)..77 0.55 0. R.74 rl1 rl2 rl3 rl4 Note: T-Value estimates of all standardized factor-loading estimates range from 8..78 Organizational leadership 0. it may be worthwhile to reassess and update the competencies by reflecting on the most recent changes in society and the workplace.73 0. 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.71 0. the factor structure might well turn out differently.. J.82. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mapping the future: New workplace learning and performance competencies.36 to 13.73 0. Bernthal. J.71 0.70 sm1 sm2 sm3 sm4 sm5 sm6 sm7 sm8 sm9 sm10 sm11 sm12 0. & Avolio. P. Colteryahn.72 0.Figure 1. (1990). Moreover. Standardized Factor Loading Estimates of a Higher Order CFA Leadership competencies 0.74 0..76 0. K.74 0. including further validation and updating.72 pm1 pm2 pm3 pm4 pm5 pm6 pm7 0.74 0. P. Finally. If the importance data were used.70 0. Second. Palo Alto. Rothwell. Alexandria. Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. a validation study using the importance data is desirable.75 0. VA: American Society for Training and Development.67 0.68 0.74 0.77 0. The current study was limited to the health care industry and so the four LCI factors have been validated only for this population. Three directions for future research are suggested.75 0. R. even though the competencies are reviewed by experts with contemporary perspectives. B. B. the fact that two foundational studies upon which the LCI was based were conducted in 1992 could raise a time-related validity argument.55 ol1 ol2 ol3 ol4 ol5 ol6 ol7 ol8 ol9 0.90 Personal mastery 0.77 0. J.68 0.68 0.67 0.87 Resource leadership 0.. Naughton. M.71 0.93 Supervisory/ managerial 0. as a means of cross-validating the LCI’s factor structure. Davis.71 0. & Wellins.51 0.75 0. W. 48 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. 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.. only the development needs data were used for this study.60 0.1002/jls . In addition. There remains a need for continued research into the LCI.66 0. From a broader perspective.

Graen.. J. & Gowing. Flanders. (1988). DC: U. Bennis. Upper Saddle River. Development and validation of the leadership practices inventory. Naquin.. M. Kaiser. C. A. 9702284) Drucker. (2003). Gilbert. & Algina. Introduction to classical and modern test theory.. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. W.. F. S. & Tatham. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years—Applying a multi-level multidomain perspective.. & Cheek. 219–247. applications. Morical. R. Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America 2000. D. January). F.. Linkage Inc. M. Anderson.. & Holton. (1995). D. Leslie. New York: McGraw-Hill. 53(4). Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory: Administration Instructions. Office of Management and Budget. B. R. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. New York: Holt. Knowledge summary series: 360-degree assessment. 34–44. (1999). NC: Center for Creative Leadership. (2000).. K. Structural equation modeling with LISREL. J. F.com/vol6/v6-i1/Hooperetal. R. A product review: 360 assessments. 297–334. Kline. K.. M. W.’s best practices in leadership development handbook: Case studies. Occupational study of federal executives. J.. (UMI No. CA: Davies-Black. 53–60. Greensboro. H. G. D. (1993). W. J. Posner.. & Garvin. F. L. & Kouzes. D. & Goldsmith.1002/jls 49 . (1951). 141–151. 45. M. (2008). Palo Alto. (1998). (1993). Hooper... S. 6(1). NJ: Erlbaum. Carter. & Fleenor. Donahue.). 144–165.. instruments. Washington. Cronbach. C. J. 43. D. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed. Office of Personnel Management. Mahwah. & Park. & Noel. (1988). Dansereau. and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts. T. 309–324.S. (1986).. R. J.). Educational and Psychological Measurement.. & Rothwell. Training & Development. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. B.. 26(4). Charan. Cashman. Boston: Harvard Business Press. B. Drotter. 191–199. & Graen. North American industry classification system. The management excellence inventory: A tool for management development. E.). J. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. S. Gregory. Multivariate data analysis (6th ed. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. M.pdf Howard. L. Human Resource Planning. M. B. (1998). K. F. 41. J.. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Washington. M. Z. & Uhl-Bien. D. (1992. (1978). W. B.. 6(2). B. J. (2004). 403–410.S. 54. training (1st ed. Unpublished report. Dubois. J. 16. (1992). W. Psychometric theory (2nd ed. R. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). Department of Labor. J. 8(2). M. Posner. (1986). (1978). (1985). M. W. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. DC: U. managers. Psychometrika. Crocker. F. and programming. (2006). Bright. Gregory. Rodriguez. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. R. The leadership pipeline. Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. (2006). Washington. & Mullen. New York: Guilford Press. Competency-based human resource management. (1973). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. & Kouzes. 10(2). Black. R. Advances in Developing Human Resources. University Park: Author. Z. Journal of Personality. A. D. Public Administration Review. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. M.. (1996).. B. Feedback to managers: A review and comparison of multi-rater instruments for management development (3rd ed. A descriptive analysis of the perceived importance of leadership competencies to practicing electrical engineers in Central Pennsylvania. Leadership Quarterly. R. Personnel Resources and Development Center. L. 48.. Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Education (PSUCaPE). Human Resource Management. E. R. S. (2007). (1998). Coughlan.. Leadership and managerial competency models: A simplified process and resulting model. D. PRELIS. & supervisors: An application of the Multipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis Inventory—Closed Ended (Mosaic) (PRD-92-21). Retrieved from http://www. & Lombardo. and Winston. L. 53. New York: Guilford Press. 184–200. 20. P. Educational and Psychological Measurement.ejbrm. 106–148.. DC: Author. Babin. Eichinger. & Bray. R.). J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harvard business review on knowledge management.Briggs. Psychometric properties of the leadership practices inventory-updated.. D. Hair. A. Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices. (2001). Development of a management skills model for the Department of Labor and Industry. Lentz. E. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. Nunnally. L. JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. J.. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Employment Service. W. & Utterback. Byrne. E.). J. (2005). L. 483–496. Patel. (2002). G. Rinehart. Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. (1960). (2007)...

Thompson. (1957). (1993). A. J. M. Trading places: Examining leadership competencies between for-profit vs. W. Katheryn K. Ji Hoon Song is an assistant professor at Oklahoma State University.edu. (2007). Unpublished report.edu..gov/deu/Handbook_2007/DEO_Handbook. (2002). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Thach. She earned a Ph. 141–152. public and non-profit leaders. in industrial-organizational psychology from Union Graduate School.psu. NJ: LEA. (2004). Wesley E. & Thompson. in training and human resources from the Pennsylvania State University. & Spenser.D. Donahue is the director of Business.. R. M.1002/jls . candidate in human resource development and organization development at the Pennsylvania State University.pdf U. 95–101.opm. 28. U. DC. & Schmidt.S.song@okstate. DC: Author. (Eds. Leadership effectiveness framework and inventory. H. Engineering. & Lau. Pennsylvania State University. L. Competence at work: Models for superior performance. His e-mail address is jihoon. Tannenbaum. M. Hyung Joon Yoon is a Ph. S. Harvard Business Review. Delegated examining operations handbook: A guide for federal agency examining offices .D. & Coons. 50 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10. He earned a Ph. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He holds a Ph.. 2009. D. (2007). Columbus: Ohio State University College of Administrative Science. How to choose a leadership pattern. Stevens. 36(2). R. The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale Form A (DAS-A) in a community sample. Woodley is associate professor. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.Spenser. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine. J. (1958). and Technology Programs and associate professor of Workforce Education and Development Program at the Pennsylvania State University.edu. Washington. B. Mahwah. K. Human Resources Development Group. Office of Personnel Management.D. He can be reached at wed105 @psu. Retrieved September 5.S. Wong. 356–375. She can be contacted at kkw1@outreach. K. Washington. 38.). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.. Washington. (1993). S. Management Development Programs. F.. from http://www.. K. & Office of Executive and Management Policy. He can be reached at drmtree@psu. New York: Wiley. DC: American Psychological Association. Y. (2008). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. E. Stogdill. E.edu. Chan. in workforce education from Penn State.D.