Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Fleenor, John W.; Smither, James W.; Atwater, Leanne; Braddy, Phillip W.; Sturm, Rachel E.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006

Cited by 314 publications

(503 citation statements)

References 196 publications

(294 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

463

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also recommend investigation of the degree of congruence between rating sources, especially between subordinates' ratings and leaders' self-ratings, since these tend to be in the lower range (Conway & Huffcut, 1997) and since the level of agreement between raters may have implications for predictions of several outcomes (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010). In addition, the cultural implications of the coherence between self and other ratings need to be further investigated since there may be variations across cultures (Atwater, Wang, Smither, & Fleenor, 2009).…”

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale

Amundsen

Martinsen

2014

The Leadership Quarterly

344

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we discuss key aspects of empowering leadership as a basis for conceptualizing and operationalizing the construct. The conceptualization resulted in eight behavioral manifestations arranged within three influence processes, which were investigated in a sample of 317 subordinates in Study 1. The results supported the validity and reliability of a two-dimensional, 18-item instrument, labeled the Empowering Leadership Scale (ELS).In Study 2 (N = 215) and Study 3 (N = 831) the factor structure of ELS was cross-validated in two independent samples from different work settings. Preliminary concurrent validation in Study 1 and 2 found that ELS had a positive relationship to several subordinate variables, among others self-leadership and psychological empowerment. In Study 3 ELS was compared with scales measuring leader-member exchange (LMX) and transformational leadership. Discriminant validity was supported, and moreover, ELS showed incremental validity beyond LMX and transformational leadership when predicting psychological empowerment. The notion of empowerment was introduced in the field of management in the 1980s, and seems based on a need for an organizational concept that could promote employee productivity (Bartunek & Spreitzer, 2006) relative to fundamental technological and commercial changes that took place both in businesses and the public sector (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011;Hill & Huq, 2004). These changes led to, among others, increased customer/client orientation, more flexible, flattened, and decentralized organization designs, and improvements in quality and efficiency for most organizations. The nature of work has also changed substantially in the last decades by becoming more complex and cognitively demanding (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and highly skilled and educated "knowledge workers" have become the core of a rapidly growing segment of the workforce (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). KeywordsIn this changing "landscape" empowering leadership (EL) has emerged as a particular form of leadership, distinct from other approaches such as directive, transactional, and transformational leadership (Pearce et al., 2003). At its core, employee empowerment involves enhanced individual motivation at work through the delegation of responsibility and authority to the lowest organizational level where a competent decision can be made (Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As such, EL may generally be defined as (2000) noted that there is little theory focusing on the role of effective empowering leader behavior, which seems equally valid today. We therefore aimed to fill some of this lack and additionally identify key mediators of EL. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present paper is, at the individual level of analysis, (1) to theoretically underpin and define EL as guideline for (2) conceptualization and operationalization of the construct, (3) to identify central mediators, and (4) to build, refine, and validate a new instrument to measure the construct. We in...

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale

Amundsen

Martinsen

2014

The Leadership Quarterly

344

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the same way as several previous studies of SOA (e.g., Berson & Sosik, 2007;Ostroff, Atwater, & Feinberg, 2004;Tekleab et al, 2008), we will use this terminology in the development of our hypotheses. However, as recommended by several scholars (e.g., Edwards, 1994;Fleenor et al, 2010) we employed polynomial regression analysis instead of categories or difference scores in the exploration of our hypotheses.…”

Section: Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We will therefore discuss our hypotheses in light of possible cultural implications at the close of this section. Fleenor et al (2010) noted that "a straightforward hypothesis is that leaders with congruent ratings are more effective than those whose ratings are incongruent" (p. 1019), but added that the relationship appears to be more complex. Specifically, over-estimators tend to ignore negative feedback from subordinates when it is inconsistent with their self-perception and thereby see themselves in an unrealistically positive light .…”

Section: Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In-agreement/poor leaders also have accurate self-perceptions compared with others, but receive largely negative feedback and their self-worth may thus be low (Atwater et al, 1998). Although they recognize their weaknesses, they are often unwilling or unable to change due to low self-efficacy regarding their leadership abilities (Fleenor et al, 2010;Tekleab et al, 2008), which results in poor performance and diminished effectiveness. Atwater and Yammarino (1997) suggested that inagreement/good estimators are more effective leaders than in-agreement/poor leaders and over-estimators.…”

Section: Self-other Agreement and Leader Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meta-studies have demonstrated that self and others' ratings are only moderately related (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997;Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988), indicative of the fact that they represent different perspectives of the same phenomenon as well as being biased in different ways (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations