See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282861545

The Convergent, Discriminant, and Concurrent Validity of Scores on the

Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire

Article  in  Journal of Social Work & Human Sexuality · October 2015

DOI: 10.18394/iid.25158

CITATIONS READS

5 583

1 author:

Faruk Şahin
Mugla Üniversitesi
39 PUBLICATIONS   719 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Managerial Cultural Intelligence in SME’s View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Faruk Şahin on 15 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

İş ve İnsan Dergisi ǀ The Journal of Human and Work
Yıl ǀ Year: Ekim ǀ October 2015
Cilt-Sayı ǀ Volume-Issue: 2(2)
ss ǀ pp: 91-104
doi: 10.18394/iid.25158
e-ISSN 2148-967X
http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/iid/

Research Article

The Convergent, Discriminant, and Concurrent Validity of Scores on the

Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire

Kendi Kendine Liderlik Ölçeği Kısa Formunun Benzeşim, Ayrışım ve Yordayıcı

Geçerliliği

Faruk Şahin*
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The present study reports the psychometric properties of a short measure of self-leadership in
Self-leadership, Self-efficacy, the Turkish context: the Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire (ASLQ). The ASLQ was
Task Performance examined using two samples and showed sound psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor
analysis showed that nine-item ASLQ measured a single construct of self-leadership. The results
Article history: supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the one-factor model of the ASLQ in
Received 24 May 2015
Received in revised form 15
relation to the 35-item Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire and General Self-Efficacy scale,
June 2015 respectively. With regard to internal consistency and test-retest reliability, the ASLQ showed
Accepted 27 July 2015 acceptable results. Furthermore, the results provided evidence that scores on the ASLQ
positively predicted individual's self-reported task performance and self-efficacy mediated this
relationship. Taken together, these findings suggest that the Turkish version of the ASLQ is a
reliable and valid measure that can be used to measure self-leadership as one variable of
interest in the future studies.

MAKALE BİLGİSİ ÖZ

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bu çalışma, Kendi Kendine Liderlik Ölçeği (KKLÖ) kısa formunun Türkçe versiyonuna ait
Kendi Kendine Liderlik, Öz- psikometrik özellikleri sunmaktadır. KKLÖ kısa formu iki ayrı örneklem üzerinde test edilmiş ve
yeterlilik, Görev oldukça iyi psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi
Performansı
sonuçları, dokuz maddelik KKLÖ kısa formunun kendi kendine liderliğin tek faktörlü yapısını
ölçtüğünü göstermiştir. Araştırma bulguları, 35 maddelik Kendi Kendine Liderlik Ölçeği ve
Tarihler :
Geliş 24 Mayıs 2015
Genel Özyeterlilik ölçeği ile karşılaştırıldığında, tek faktörlü KKLÖ kısa formunun benzeşim ve
Düzeltme geliş 15 Haziran ayrışım geçerliliğini taşıdığını desteklemiştir. İçsel tutarlılık ve test-yeniden test güvenilirliği
2015 açsısından, KKLÖ kısa formunun yeterli güvenilirliğe sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca,
Kabul 27 Temmuz 2015 araştırma bulguları, KKLÖ kısa formundan elde edilen puanların bireylerin görev
performansını yordadığını ve öz-yeterliliğin bu ilişkiye aracılık ettiğini ortaya koymuştur.
Kısaca, bu bulgular, KKLÖ kısa formunun Türkçe versiyonunun, kendi kendine liderlik
kavramını tek bir değişken olarak ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir.

*
Correspondent Author: Faruk Şahin, Doç. Dr., Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Fethiye İşletme Fakültesi, Fethiye, Muğla, Türkiye.
E-posta: [email protected]
92 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

1. INTRODUCTION strategies focus on incorporating more enjoyable

attributes into the specific tasks which need to be
accomplished, so that the task itself becomes
In today’s global and competitive business world, naturally rewarding. The two main natural reward
individuals’ characteristics are becoming more strategies consist of building more naturally
important in the determination of an organizations enjoyable features into activities and focusing
success or failure. Organizations encourage their intentionally on the naturally rewarding aspects of
workforce to take greater responsibility for their activities (Anderson & Prussia, 1997; Manz &
own work-related behaviors and actions (Pearce & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck &
Manz, 2005). Moreover organizations have Houghton, 2006). Finally, constructive thought
recognized that work-related behaviors and actions pattern strategies involve identification and
are not just an outward process, but an internal modification of dysfunctional beliefs and
process as well. The concept of self-leadership, the assumptions, the use of mental imagery and positive
process of influencing oneself to perform more self-talk. Through constructive thought pattern
effectively, presents a strong initiative for the strategies, individuals develop and facilitate more
development and effectiveness in both individuals constructive and adaptable thought patterns,
and organizations. It has proved to be important to minimizing destructive and ineffective thinking for
understand the nature of work-related behavior, of personal effectiveness (Manz, 1986; Manz & Neck,
how it is activated, of why it takes a direction and 2004; Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck & Manz, 1992,
continues to keep it (Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 1996). Overall, self-leadership strategies are
2011). Since the first introduction of the concept by designed to influence personal effectiveness
Manz and Sims (1980), there has been a growing positively by helping individuals to be conscious of
body of literature that examines self-leadership their own behavior and thought (Manz & Neck,
skills over three decades and studies has indicated 2004; Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al.,
that that self-leadership is associated with improved 2011).
performance, improved effectiveness, and increased
organizational contributions (Alves, Lovelace, In recognition of its importance, self-leadership has
Manz, Matsypura, Toyasaki, & Ke, 2006; attracted considerable attention worldwide and
Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012; Manz, 1986; across academic literature (Houghton, Carnes, &
Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011; Ellison, 2013). Specifically, publication of a valid
Prussia, Anderson, & Manz, 1998). and reliable questionnaire for measurement of self-
leadership (the Revised Self-Leadership
Self-leadership is described as cognitive and Questionnaire - RSLQ; Houghton & Neck, 2002)
behavioral strategies individuals use as a means for initiated more empirical studies. Based on the nine
“the self-motivation and self-direction we need to factors, Houghton and Neck (2002) developed an
perform” (Manz & Sims, 1991, p. 23). Self- initial questionnaire (the RSLQ) to measure the
leadership is the influence of oneself to achieve the three general self-leadership strategies. Over the
self-motivation and self-direction needed to behave past several years, the RSLQ has been validated
in desirable ways (Manz, 1986; Manz & Neck, across a number of samples and multiple countries,
2004). Self-leadership has its philosophical roots in including China (Ho & Nesbit, 2009; Neubert &
social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986) and Wu, 2006), Germany (Andreßen & Konradt, 2007),
intrinsic motivation theory (e.g., Deci & Ryan, Israel (Carmeli, Meitar & Weisberg, 2006),
1985). Specifically, building on these theoretical Portugal (Marques-Quinteiro, Curral, & Passos,
foundations, self-leadership comprises three distinct 2011), Turkey (Doğan & Şahin, 2008; Şahin, 2011;
but complementary sets of strategies: (1) behavioral Tabak, Sığrı, & Türköz, 2013), and South Africa
focused strategies, (2) natural reward strategies, and (Mahembe, Engelbrecht, & De Kock, 2013; Van
(3) constructive thought patterns (Anderson & Zyl, 2008). A recent study suggests support for the
Prussia, 1997; Houghton & Neck, 2002; Manz & cross-cultural validity of the hierarchical factor
Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck & structure of self-leadership (Houghton et al., 2013).
Houghton, 2006; Prussia et al., 1998). Moreover, an increasing amount of research has
demonstrated the positive associations between self-
Behavioral focused strategies aims to improve self- leadership and beneficial outcomes (Neck &
awareness so that individuals can be encouraged to Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011).
manipulate their behaviors to needed, specifically
the behaviors related to necessary but unpleasant The RSLQ assesses a range of self-leadership
tasks. Behavioral focused strategies include self- strategies with 35 items, however this questionnaire
observation, self-goal setting, self-reward, self- is relatively long and therefore time consuming
punishment and self-cueing (Manz & Neck, 2004; which may cause some data collection challenges to
Neck & Houghton, 2006). Natural reward researchers. Recently, Houghton, Dawley and
 Faruk Şahin | 93

DiLiello (2012) developed an Abbreviated Self- agency workforce sample in the United States. Due
Leadership Questionnaire (ASLQ), a nine-item to the recent addition of the ASLQ to literature,
questionnaire which may be used as a general there is scarce research on the measurement. For
assessment of the global self-leadership construct. example, using the ASLQ, AbuShmais (2013)
In their research exploratory factor analysis yielded conducted research on the relationship between
three factors. Nine items converged into three self-leadership and organizational commitment of
distinct factors, labeled as behavior awareness and U.S. Information Technology (IT) employees. He
volition, task motivation, and constructive found that there was a small correlation between the
cognition. The first factor, behavior awareness and two variables. Wilson (2014) used the ASLQ in his
volition, contains three items from the self- research to examine the relationships among self-
observation and self-goal setting sub-dimensions of leadership, psychological empowerment,
the RSLQ and represents the behavioral focused performance, and job satisfaction of U.S.
strategies dimension. The second factor, task employees. The results of his research indicated a
motivation, contains three items from the significant positive relationship between self-
visualizing successful performance and self-reward leadership and job satisfaction. Self-leadership was
sub-dimensions of the RSLQ. The task motivation found to predict either self-reported or objective job
factor reflects both the behavioral focused and performance. Moreover, self-leadership moderated
constructive thought strategies dimensions. Finally, the relationship between psychological
the constructive cognition factor contains three empowerment and self-reported job performance,
items from the self-talk and evaluating beliefs and such that this relationship was stronger for those
assumptions sub-dimensions of the RSLQ and who engage in self-leadership strategies. Pandelica
represents the constructive thought pattern (2014) conducted research on the relationship
strategies dimension. Subsequent confirmatory between self-leadership, innovation culture and
factor analysis demonstrated good fit of the three- innovative behavior among U.S. engineers, using
factor model to the data. The nine-item ASLQ has the ASLQ. Self-leadership was found to moderate
an acceptable internal consistency (overall alpha the relationship between innovation culture and
coefficients 0.73). innovative behavior. Rice (2014) used the ASLQ in
his research to examine the relationships between
Although preliminary findings on the development self-leadership and self-efficacy of U.S. employees.
of the abbreviated version (ASLQ) of the widely He found that behavior awareness and volition and
used 35-item RSLQ were promising, further constructive cognition sub-dimensions of the ASLQ
examination of its association with related were predictors of general self-efficacy. The ASLQ
constructs and assessment instruments is warranted. has been recently tested in a sample outside the
This has implications not only for the validity of the United States. Nel and van Zyl (2015) examined the
ASLQ scores across studies, but also for the psychometric properties of the ASLQ within a
evaluation of the contribution of self-leadership sample of working adults in South Africa. Their
research to the investigation of individual and study indicated that the one-factor model fitted the
organizational effectiveness. The main aim of the data well, and, thus, the ASLQ can be
current research is to evaluate the robustness and conceptualized as measuring an overall self-
utility of Houghton et al.'s (2012) ASLQ. The first leadership.
study tests the factorial structure of the Turkish
version of the ASLQ. Moreover, it explores the As mentioned above, few attempts have been made
relationships between the Turkish version of the to use the ASLQ for measuring self-leadership. In
ASLQ and conceptually related constructs to addition, these studies were mostly conducted in the
provide information on the convergent, divergent U.S., which may lead to the misapplication of the
validity of the instrument. The second study research findings in different cultural context.
investigates the concurrent validity of the ASLQ Therefore, I was interested in confirming the factor
scores in the prediction of self-efficacy and task structure with Turkish sample. Moreover, I
performance. explored the convergent and divergent validity of
the Turkish version of the ASLQ. Convergent
validity occurs if a measure captures what it really
2. STUDY I is supposed to measure, scores on that measure
should be more related to scores on other similar
constructs. Discriminant validity occurs if scores on
Houghton et al. (2012) developed the ASLQ, a that measure should not be, or less, related to scores
nine-item and three-factor questionnaire which may on dissimilar constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
be used as a general assessment of the global self-
leadership construct. This structure has been Convergent validity of the ASLQ was examined by
confirmed with student sample and government calculating correlations between the ASLQ and the
94 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

RSLQ. It was hypothesized that the ASLQ sub- 2.1.Method

dimensions should differentially correlate with the
sub-dimensions of the RSLQ. The following is a list 2.1.1. Participants and procedure:
of the sub-dimensions measured by the ASLQ and Data were collected from undergraduate
in parentheses are the sub-dimensions of the RSLQ college students enrolled in introductory business
which are similar in meaning: (1) behavior administration courses at a public university in
awareness and volition (RSLQ-behavioral focused Turkey. All students were volunteers and received
strategies: self-observation and self-goal setting no credit for their participation in the study. I
sub-dimensions), (2) task motivation (RSLQ- distributed the survey questionnaires to a total of
behavioral focused and constructive thought 500 students who agreed to participate in the study.
strategies: visualizing successful performance and 176 students failed to provide the necessary data or
self-reward sub-dimensions), and (3) constructive did not respond to the survey. As a result, 324
cognition (RSLQ- constructive thought pattern participants filled out the questionnaires, which
strategies: self-talk and evaluating beliefs and resulted in a response rate of 64.8%. Of the 324
assumptions sub-dimensions). Evidence of strong undergraduate students, 58.9% were female and
correlations with the ASLQ sub-dimensions and the 40.1% were male. The mean age of the participants
similar sub- dimensions of the RSLQ and weaker was 23.11 years (SD = 1.15). A total of 204
correlations between the other sub- dimensions, will participants (56.3% female and 43.7% male)
be taken to support the convergent validity of the completed a test-retest for the ASLQ after a period
ASLQ. of one month. I tested whether non-respondents at
the second administration were significantly
Discriminant validity of the ASLQ was examined different on any characteristics at the first
by calculating correlations between the ASLQ and administration. No significant difference was found
the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Self-efficacy refers on any sample characteristics from the participants
to an individual’s judgments about his or her at the initial and follow-up assessment.
capabilities to successfully perform specific tasks
and behaviors (Bandura, 1986). On the other hand, 2.1.2. Measures:
generalized self-efficacy is a more trait-like version
of the concept and refers to stable and global beliefs Self-leadership measures.Two measures were used
in the ability to deal efficiently with a wide range of for the current study: the RSLQ (Houghton & Neck,
challenging situations (Eden, 2001; Jerusalem & 2002), and the ASLQ (Houghton et al., 2012). The
Schwarzer, 1992). Previous research found that RSLQ is a 35-item nine-factor scale which
self-leadership is distinct from related classic measures an individual’s level of self-leadership
motivation constructs, including general self- behaviors manifested in three core strategies.
efficacy (e.g., Furtner, Rauthmann, & Sachse, Participants rated items on a five-point Likert-type
2015). However, a recent research, which used the scale ranging from 1 (not at all accurate) to 5
ASLQ for measuring self-leadership (Rice, 2014), (completely accurate). Doğan and Şahin (2008)
indicated that general self-efficacy had positive showed that the Turkish version of the RSLQ has
correlation with behavior awareness and volition (r good psychometric properties.
= .58), task motivation (r = .61), and constructive
cognition (r = .59). Hence, Rice's (2014) findings I assessed the abbreviated version (ASLQ) of the
may raise a question as to whether the ASLQ and RSLQ with Houghton et al.'s (2012) nine-item and
general self-efficacy scale measure sufficiently three-factor questionnaire. The questionnaire
distinct constructs. Self-leadership concept has included three items for behavior awareness and
been subject to some degree of criticism which volition, three items for task motivation, and three
questioned its construct as a unique and items for constructive cognition (see Appendix for
distinguishable one relative to other related theories. listing of nine items of the ASLQ in Turkish).
However, the existing body of empirical studies Participants indicated the applicability of
demonstrates the construct validity of self- characteristics and behaviors to themselves on a
leadership (e.g., Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
et al., 2011). Therefore, it was hypothesized that the (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). English
ASLQ sub-dimensions should not be, or less, version of the ASLQ was translated into Turkish by
related to scores on the General Self-Efficacy Scale. the translation and back-translation method (Brislin,
1970).
Finally, to test the stability of the ASLQ, it was
administered twice with an interval of one month. I Self-Efficacy. Schwarzer and Jerusalem's (1995)
measured test–retest reliability of the ASLQ via a General Self-efficacy Scale (GSE) was used to
correlation coefficient calculated by the scores on measure participants' self-efficacy beliefs. The GSE
repeated administrations. scale consists of 10 items rated on a five-point
 Faruk Şahin | 95

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all rue) to 5 normed fit index (NNFI) = .98; root mean square
(exactly true). The GSE scale has been adapted for error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.059, 90%
28 languages, including Turkish (Yeşilay, confidence interval (CI) [0.048–0.070] and
Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1997). Previous research standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) =
has suggested that the scale has good psychometric 0.70. All of the standardized factor loadings were
properties and can be used as a single-factor statistically significant (see Figure 1). I compared
measure (e.g., Scholz, Gutiérrez-Doña, Sud, & relative fit of the one-factor model with three-factor
Schwarzer, 2002). model. The three-factor model yielded a relatively
poor fit: χ2 (24) = 235.57, p < .01; GFI = .86; CFI =
2.2. Results .90; NNFI = .85; RMSEA = 0.17, and SRMR =
0.058 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hoyle, 1995). In
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to sum, the one-factor model provided the best fit
confirm the three-factor structure of the ASLQ. I compared to the three-factor model and supported
evaluated the internal consistency of the ASLQ Houghton et al.'s (2012) recommendation for the
scale, by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha use of the ASLQ as an overall measure of self-
coefficients for the total ASLQ scale and for each of leadership.
the factors and test–retest correlations. Moreover, I
studied relationships among the ASLQ, the RSLQ, 2.2.2. Reliability Indices: The psychometric
and GSE. properties of the scores are reported in Table 1. The
internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) were
2.2.1. Factorial Validity: CFA was performed computed for the three sub-dimensions and the total
using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) Robust ASLQ scale in Study 1. As shown in Table 1,
estimation method. I tested two models: one-factor coefficient alphas for each of the three sub-
model of the ASLQ suggested by Houghton et al. dimensions of the ASLQ ranged from .42 to .76.
(2012) as an overall measure of self-leadershipand However, the scores for the total ASLQ scale
three-factor model of the ASLQ. Results for one- produced acceptable reliability level of .75
factor model of the ASLQ indicate that the model (Nunnally, 1978) as an overall measure of self-
was a good fit to the data for the sample: χ2 (27) = leadership. I used Pearson’s correlation coefficients
79.33, p < .01; goodness-of-fit (GFI) = .98; to examine test-retest reliability. The one month
(Bentler’s) comparative fit index (CFI) = .98; non- test–retest reliability for the total ASLQ scale was
96 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

.76, and the one month test–retest reliability for the only existed between the ASLQ and self-
three sub-dimensions of the ASLQ ranged from .69 punishment sub-dimension of the RSLQ. In sum,
to .80. the high correlations between the ASLQ sub-
dimensions and the related RSLQ sub-dimensions
2.2.3. Convergent Validity: It was hypothesized that provide evidence that the ASLQ has strong
the ASLQ sub-dimensions should differentially convergent validity.
correlate with the sub-dimensions of the RSLQ.
Table 2 indicates the relationships between the sub- 2.2.4. Discriminant Validity: It was hypothesized
dimensions of the ASLQ and other constructs, that the ASLQ sub-dimensions should not be, or
namely the RSLQ sub-dimensions and GSE. It can less, related to scores on the GSE. Table 2 contains
be seen that for each sub-dimension of the ASLQ the correlations between the ASLQ sub-dimensions
the strongest relationship is with the construct to and GSE. Correlational analysis showed that
which it is conceptually similar. As would be behavior awareness and volition (r = .18, p<.01),
expected, behavior awareness and volition sub- task motivation (r = .24, p<.01), and constructive
dimension of the ASLQ was significantly related to cognition (r = .18, p<.01) were significantly
self-observation (r = .66, p < .01) and self-goal correlated with GSE. Similarly, the ASLQ scores
setting (r = .76, p < .01) sub-dimensions of the were significantly related to GSE (r = .21, p < .01).
RSLQ. Task motivation sub-dimension of the The patterns of intercorrelations between the ASLQ
ASLQ was significantly related to visualizing and GSE were low, demonstrating that the ASLQ
successful performance (r = .69, p < .01) and self- has satisfactory discriminant validity.
reward (r = .65, p < .01) sub-dimensions of the
RSLQ. Finally, constructive cognition sub- 2.3. Discussion
dimension of the ASLQ was significantly related to
self-talk (r = .64, p < .01) and evaluating beliefs and The Study 1 examined the factorial structure of the
assumptions (r = .70, p < .01) sub-dimensions of the Turkish version of the ASLQ. Moreover, it explored
RSLQ. In addition, the correlations between the the relationships between the Turkish version of the
ASLQ and sub-dimensions of the RSLQ ranged ASLQ and conceptually related constructs to
from .10 to .73. Nonsignificant correlation (.10 ) provide information on the convergent, discriminant
 Faruk Şahin | 97

validity of the instrument. The findings indicated creativity and innovation (e.g., Carmeli et al, 2006;
that the one-factor model provided the best fit DiLiello & Houghton, 2006; Houghton & Yoho,
compared to the three-factor model of the ASLQ, 2005; Manz & Sims, 2001), team effectiveness
which supported Houghton et al.'s (2012) (e.g., Hauschildt & Konradt, 2012; Houghton,
recommendation for the use of the ASLQ as an Neck, & Manz, 2003; Konradt, Andreßen, &
overall measure of self-leadership. The results also Ellwart, 2009). Research indicated that self-
indicated that internal consistency (Cronbach’s leadership has also been associated with self-
alpha) and test–retest reliability for the total ASLQ efficacy (e.g., Manz, 1986; Manz & Neck, 2004;
scale were satisfactory. Initial support was found Neck & Manz, 1996), empowerment (e.g.,
for the convergent and discriminant validity of the Houghton & Yoho, 2005), job satisfaction (e.g.,
ASLQ. I found that total score on the ASLQ Neck & Manz, 1996), and reduced absenteeism
correlated strongly with the RSLQ. In addition, the (Frayne & Latham, 1987; Latham & Frayne, 1989).
sub-dimensions of the ASLQ correlated Studies has consistently demonstrated that increased
differentially with the sub-dimensions of the RSLQ. self-leadership is associated with better affective
The correlation between the total score on the responses and improved work performance (Stewart
ASLQ and GSE was low which demonstrated that et al., 2011).
the ASLQ has discriminant validity. Evidence
reported in the Study 1 has shown that the ASLQ Due to the recent addition of the ASLQ as a short
has satisfactory reliability and assesses a single measure of self-leadership concept to literature,
global construct of self-leadership. little is known about the usefulness of the ASLQ
for predicting individual or organizational
outcomes. To date, empirical self-leadership
3. STUDY II studies using the ASLQ has indicated that self-
leadership was associated with organizational
commitment (AbuShmais, 2013), job satisfaction
Previous research has found that the application of and job performance (Wilson, 2014), and self-
self-leadership strategies may result in numerous efficacy (Rice, 2014). In this research, I tested the
predictable individual or organizational outcomes concurrent validity of the ASLQ in the prediction of
(Alves et al., 2006; Andressen et al., 2012; Manz, self-efficacy and performance.
1986; Neck & Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011;
Prussia et al., 1998). For example, self-leadership Conceptual and empirical studies demonstrated
has been shown to contribute to performance (e.g., positive relations of self-leadership with individual
Neck & Houghton, 2006; Prussia et al., 1998), performance. For example, Prussia et al. (1998)
98 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

found that there was a significant and positive relationship between self-leadership, as measured
relationship between self-leadership and students’ with the ASLQ, and individual task performance.
course performance and that this relationship was
mediated by self-efficacy. Politis (2006) examined 3.1. Method
the relationship between behavioral focused
strategies sub-dimension of self-leadership, job 3.1.1. Participants and procedure: Data was
satisfaction and team performance. He found that collected as part of larger study of employee
job satisfaction mediated the relation between self- attitudes from an automotive company in Turkey.
leadership behavioral focused strategies and team The Human Resources Department of the company
performance. Konradt et al. (2009) examined the supplied list of employees. Participation in the
relation of self-leadership on team members' study was voluntary. Three hundreds of the 411
motivation, satisfaction, and performance in employees of the target organization were randomly
organizational teams. Their results indicated that selected for inclusion in this research. A total of 128
self-leadership was positively associated with responses were collected from the paper-based
performance at the individual level and that self- surveys, resulting in a response rate of 42.6%.
efficacy had a partial mediating role in this Regarding sample characterization, 15.6% were
relationship. In a study into the relationship female and 84.4% were male. The mean age of the
between employee goal orientation, self-leadership participants was 28.46 years (SD = 6.56). In terms
dimensions, adaptive and proactive work role of education level, most of them (90.6%) have a
performances, Marques-Quinteiro and Curral college degree and below (e.g., vocational school),
(2012) discovered a positive and significant while 9.4% have master degree. Employees
relationship between behavioral strategies of self- reported an average length of tenure within their
leadership and job performance among workers at a organization of 7.13 years (SD = 6.69).
software company. Recent studies, in which the
ASLQ was used for measuring self-leadership, have 3.1.2. Measures: Each participant was asked to
demonstrated that self-leadership was significantly complete a questionnaire composed of three
and positively related to job satisfaction and self- separate measures, namely, the ASLQ, the GSE
reported or objective job performance (Wilson, scale, and self-reported task performance scale for
2014), and self-efficacy (Pandelica, 2014). As a in-role behaviors, as well as questions to obtain
result, previous studies across varying contextual demographic data. The ASLQ and the GSE scale
circumstances have supported the positive were described in the previous study.
relationship between self-leadership and job
performance. Moreover, self-efficacy was found to Self-reported task performance was measured using
have a mediating role in this relationship (e.g., seven in-role behavior items adapted from Williams
Konradt et al., 2009; Prussia et al., 1998). and Anderson (1991). An example of the items
include “Overall, I effectively fulfill my roles and
In summary, this study evaluates the concurrent responsibilities specified in the job description”.
validity of the ASLQ scores in the prediction of These items appraise the tasks that individuals are
individual task performance. In addition, it assesses expected to perform as a normal function of his or
the mediating role of self-efficacy in the her job. Participants rated items on a five-point
 Faruk Şahin | 99

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all Self-leadership was significantly related to self-
the time). This scale is widely used instrument for efficacy (r = .24, p<.01).
measuring in-role behaviors and the Turkish version
of the scale has good psychometric properties (e.g., It was hypothesized that self-leadership, as
Gürbüz, Ayhan, & Sert, 2014). measured with the ASLQ, should predict individual
self-reported task performance. In addition, self-
3.2. Results efficacy should have a mediating role in the
relationship between self-leadership and individual
I conducted a CFA using the ML Robust estimation self-reported task performance. To test the
method, to assess the discriminant validity of the mediational model, I employed the bootstrapping
constructs measured in this study. Results of the procedure (Hayes, 2013), which was used to test
proposed three-factor structure (the ASLQ, GSE, whether self-efficacy mediated the relationship
and self-reported task performance) demonstrated between self-leadership and individual self-reported
good fit with the data, χ2 (296) = 445.74, p < .01; task performance. Compared with the causal
GFI = .89; CFI = .98; NNFI = .98; RMSEA = steps approach testing for empirical evidence of
0.063, 90% confidence interval (CI) [0.051–0.075]; mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) or the Sobel
and SRMR = 0.080 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; test (Sobel, 1982), the bootstrapping procedure
Hoyle, 1995). To test for the discriminant validity affords greater statistical power than the normal
of the constructs, I compared the three-factor model theory approach. In general, the bootstrapping
with two-factor model (the ASLQ and GSE procedure requires only that there exists an effect to
combined, and self-reported task performance); χ2 be mediated (i.e., c ≠ 0) and that the indirect effect
(298) = 623.20, p < .01; GFI = .73; CFI = .92; to be statistically significant in the direction as
NNFI = .91; RMSEA = 0.093, 90% confidence described by the mediational model. 95%
interval (CI) [0.082–0.10]; and SRMR = 0.10) and confidence intervals were computed to conclude
one-factor model (χ2 (299) = 924.62, p < .01; GFI = whether the indirect effect is significantly different
.64; CFI = .82; NNFI = .81; RMSEA = 0.13, 90% from zero at the significance level of .05 (two-
confidence interval (CI) [0.12–0.14]; and SRMR = tailed). If the confidence interval did not contain
0.12). Nested model comparisons demonstrated that zero, I concluded that there was a mediation effect;
the three-factor model was superior to the two- if the confidence interval contained zero, I
factor model and one-factor model. Hence, the concluded there was no indirect effect.
proposed three-factor model provided a better fit
than plausible alternative models. Table 4 presents the results for the linear regression
analysis and Table 5 contains the results regarding
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, bootstrapping analysis. As expected, self-leadership
intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas of the positively predicted both self-reported task
variable in study 2. Correlational analysis showed performance (β = .18, p <.05) and self-efficacy (β =
that the self-leadership (r = .18, p<.05) and self- .24, p <.01). In addition, self-efficacy positively
efficacy (r = .45, p<.01) were significantly predicted self-reported task performance (β = .45, p
correlated with self-reported task performance. <.01). However, when the effect of self-efficacy
was controlled, the effect of self-leadership on self-
100 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

reported task performance was not significant (β = found for the discriminant validity of the ASLQ.
.07, p = .36 The correlation between the total score on the
ASLQ and GSE was low and CFA results
Results of bootstrapping analysis in Table 5 demonstrated that the proposed three-factor
revealed that the test of mediation was supported. I structure (the ASLQ, GSE, and self-reported task
found support for the assertion that the relation performance) demonstrated good fit with the data.
between self-leadership and self-reported task In sum, the results showed that the ASLQ has
performance is mediated by self-efficacy. The discriminant validity and satisfactory reliability to
indirect effect through self-efficacy was significant assess a single global construct of self-leadership.
(Effect = .07, SE = .03, 95% CI = 0.02 − 0.15). In
addition, results from the Sobel tests support the Second, the literature on self-leadership has
mediating role of self-efficacy on the relations indicated that increased self-leadership is associated
between self-leadership and self-reported task with better affective responses and improved work
performance (z = 2.46, p < .05). performance (e.g., Neck & Houghton, 2006;
Stewart et al., 2011), however, sparse empirical
Evidence reported in the Study 2 has shown that the evidence has showed the usefulness of the ASLQ
ASLQ has satisfactory concurrent validity in the for predicting individual or organizational level
prediction of individual task performance. outcomes. The results of Study 2 provided evidence
Moreover, the results supported that self-efficacy that self-leadership, as measured with the ASLQ,
fully mediated the relationship between self- positively predicted individual's self-reported task
leadership, as measured with the ASLQ, and performance and self-efficacy mediated the effect
individual task performance (given the direct of self-leadership on individual's self-reported task
effect). performance. The results were in line with previous
studies (e.g., Konradt et al., 2009; Prussia et al.,
3.3. Discussion 1998), in which self-leadership was measured with
the RSLQ. In sum, the Study 2 has indicated that
The Study 2 examined the concurrent validity of the the ASLQ has satisfactory concurrent validity in the
ASLQ scores in the prediction of individual task prediction of individual task performance.
performance. In addition, it explored the mediating
role of self-efficacy in the relationship between self-
leadership, as measured with the ASLQ, and 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION
individual task performance.

The evidence found in Study 2 can be split Due to its association with desirable individual and
into two categories. First, additional support was organizational level outcomes (Stewart et al., 2011),
 Faruk Şahin | 101

the concept of self-leadership have attracted the ASLQ. Second, in the present study self-reported
attention of scholars over the past decades. task performance was used as an individual level
Although the findings of studies across cultures has outcome of self-leadership. Research indicates that
confirmed the RSLQ as an effective measure of self-leadership does not only predict performance
self-leadership (e.g., Houghton et al., 2013), a short outcomes, but also predicts a variety beneficial
measure of self-leadership concept has been added outcome such as job satisfaction, empowerment,
to literature. Houghton et al. (2012) developed the creativity / innovation, and team effectiveness,
Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire (ASLQ) (Stewart et al., 2011). Future research could choose
and suggested that it may assess an overall self- to test the other possible outcomes that are of
leadership for certain empirical research central concern in studies of self-leadership. Third,
applications. A new concise and general measure of as this research was conducted using Turkish
self-leadership may prompt further research into the samples, future studies are needed to replicate the
role of individual and organizational level findings in other samples, as well as across cultures.
outcomes. The primary goal of the present research
was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the In conclusion, the ASLQ holds promise as a
ASLQ scale in the Turkish context. The findings measure of single global construct of self-
confirmed the one-factor model of the ASLQ, leadership. Since the ASLQ is a short measure that
which is in line with the recommendation of is easy to administer and score, research on self-
Houghton et al. (2012) for the use of the ASLQ as leadership seems to continue gaining momentum. I
an overall measure of self-leadership. The results believe that the Turkish version of the ASLQ is
also indicated the reliability, convergent, reliable and valid instrument to measure self-
discriminant and concurrent validity of the Turkish leadership as one variable of interest in the future
version of the ASLQ. studies.

One of the most striking results of the present

research was that the ASLQ, as an overall measure
of self-leadership, is applicable to a nonWestern
context, namely Turkish context. Early criticism of
the self-leadership concept questioned the
generalizability of the self-leadership construct to
nonWestern cultures (e.g., Georgianna, 2007; Ho &
Nesbit, 2009; Ho, Nesbit, Jepsen, & Demirian,
2012; Neubert & Wu, 2006). However, previous
studies have found empirical evidence for the
validity of the self-leadership construct across
cultures, as measured with the RSLQ (e.g.,
Houghton et al., 2013). The findings of the present
study are noteworthy because they show the
generalizability of the self-leadership construct, as
measured with the ASLQ, across cultures and
countries. From a theoretical perspective, the results
of the present study suggest that the ASLQ assesses
single global construct of self-leadership. From a
practical point of view, the results of the present
study highlight the importance of providing
information about the application of the ASLQ,
such that scores on the ASLQ can predict desirable
outcomes both to individual and organizational
level.

Although I conducted the present study using two

samples, several limitations remain. First, I
examined discriminant validity of the ASLQ by
calculating correlations between the ASLQ and the
GSE Scale. Future research could investigate the
associations between the ASLQ and several
theoretically related constructs (i.e., self regulation,
need for achievement) to provide additional
information about discriminant validity of the
102 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

REFERENCES DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing

organizational leadership capacity for the future:
AbuShmais, E. I. (2013). A quantitative examination of Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and
self-leadership impact on organizational commitment creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4),
of IT employees in US companies (Doctoral 319-337.
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3594642) Doğan, S. & Şahin, F. (2008). A study of reliability,
validity and adaptation of revised self leadership
Alves, J. C., Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. C., Matsypura, D., questionnaire-RSLQ to Turkish context. Journal of
Toyasaki, F., & Ke, K. G. (2006). A cross-cultural Economics and Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 139-
perspective of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial 164.
Psychology, 21, 338-359.
Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of
Anderson, J. S., & Prussia, G. E. (1997). The self- general and specific subjective efficacy. In M. Erez,
leadership questionnaire: Preliminary assessment of U. Kleinbeck, and H. Thierry (Eds.), Work Motivation
construct validity. The Journal of Leadership in the Context of A Globalizing Economy (pp. 73–86).
Studies, 4, 119–143. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Andreßen, P., & Konradt, U. (2007). Messung von Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of
selbstführung: Psychometrischeüberprüfung der social-learning theory to employee self-management
deutschsprachigen version des Revised Self- of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
Leadership Questionnaire[Measurement of self- 387-392.
management: Psychometric review of the German
version of the Revised Self-Leadership Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2015).
Questionnaire]. ZeitschriftFürPersonalpsychologie, Unique self-leadership: A bifactor model approach.
6(3), 117-128. Leadership, 11(1), 105-125.

Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, P. C. (2012). The Georgianna, S. (2007). Self-leadership: A cross-cultural
Relation Between Self-Leadership and perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Transformational Leadership Competing Models and 22(6), 569-589.
the Moderating Role of Virtuality. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 68 – 82. Gürbüz, S., Ayhan, Ö., & Sert, M. (2014). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Organizational
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and Commitment Relationship: A Meta Analysis on
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, Researches Conducted in Turkey. Journal Of Human
NJ: Prentice. And Work, 1(1), 3-20.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator– Hauschildt, K., &Konradt, U. (2012). Self-leadership and
mediator variable distinction in social psychological team members’ work role performance. Journal of
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical Managerial Psychology, 27(5), 497-517.
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation,
moderation, and conditional process analysis. New
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-culture York: The Guilford Press.
research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1,
185–216. Ho, J., & Nesbit, P. L. (2009). A refinement and
extension of the self-leadership scale for the Chinese
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 450-
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long 476.
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–
162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ho, J., Nesbit, P. L., Jepsen, D., & Demirian, S. (2012).
Extending self-leadership research to the East:
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959) Convergent and Measurement equivalence of the Chinese and English
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod versions of the MSLQ. Asian Journal of Social
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Psychology, 15(2), 101-111.

Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self- Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The Revised self-
leadership skills and innovative behaviour at leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor
work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 75–90. structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17, 672-691.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human behavior. New Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003). We
York: Plenum. think we can, we think we can, we think we can: the
impact of thinking patterns and self-efficacy on work
 Faruk Şahin | 103

team sustainability. Team Performance Management, Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1991). Superleadership:
9(1/2), 31-41. Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational
Dynamics, 19, 18-35.
Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a
contingency model of leadership and psychological Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new
empowerment: When should self-leadership be SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves.
encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Studies, 11(4), 65-83.
Marques-Quinteiro, P. & Curral, L. A. (2012). Goal
Houghton, J. D., Carnes, A., & Ellison, C. N. (2013). A Orientation and Work Role Performance: Predicting
Cross-Cultural Examination of Self-Leadership: Adaptive and Proactive Work Role Performance
Testing for Measurement Invariance Across Four Through Self-Leadership Strategies. The Journal of
Cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Psychology, 146(6), 559-577.
Studies, 21(4), 414 –430.
Marques-Quinteiro, P., Curral, L. A., & Passos, A. M.
Houghton, J. D., Dawley, D., & DiLiello, T. C. (2012). (2011). Adapting the Revised Self-Leadership
The Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire Questionnaire to the Portuguese context. Social
(ASLQ): A More Concise Measure of Self- Indicators Research, 108, 553-564.
Leadership. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 7(2), 216 – 232. Neck, C. P., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of
self-leadership theory and research: Past
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling developments, present trends, and future possibilities.
approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 270-295.
R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Neck, C. P. & Manz, C. C. (1992). Thought self-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. leadership: the impact of self-talk and mental imagery
on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Jerusalem, M. & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a 12, 681–699.
resource factor in the stress appraisal processes. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought Control of Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-
Action, (pp. 195-213). New York: Hemisphere. leadership: The impact of mental strategies training
on employee behavior, cognition, and emotion.
Konradt, U., Andreßen, P., & Ellwart, T. (2009). Self- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 445–467.
leadership in organizational teams: A multi-level
analysis of moderators and mediators. European Nel, P., & Van Zyl, E. (2015). Assessing the
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, psychometric properties of the revised and
322-346. abbreviated self-leadership questionnaires. SA
Journal of Human Resource Management (SA
Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management TydskrifvirMenslikehulpbronbestuur), 13(1), 1–8.
training for increasing job attendance: A follow-up
and a replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Neubert, M.J., & Wu, J.C. (2006). An investigation of the
411-416. generalisability of the Houghton and Neck Revised
Self-leadership Questionnaire to a Chinese
Mahembe, B., Engelbrecht, A., & De Kock, F. (2013). A context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4),
confirmatory factor analytic study of a self-leadership 360–373.
measure in South Africa. SA Journal Of Human
Resource Management, 11(1), 10 pages. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded
theory of self-influence processes. Academy of Pandelica, A. (2014). Self-Leadership as a Moderator of
Management Review, 11(3), 585-600. the Relationship Between Innovation Culture and
Innovation Behavior Among Engineers (Doctoral
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (2004). Mastering self- dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
leadership: Empowering yourself for personal and Theses database. (UMI No. 3643665)
excellence (Third edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall. Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver
bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1980). Self-management shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational
as a substitute for leadership: A social learning Dynamics, 34, 130 –140.
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-
367. Politis, J. D. (2006). Self-leadership behavioural-focused
strategies and team performance: The mediating
 104 | İş ve İnsan Dergisi 2(2) 91-104

influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Retrieved from http://userpage.fu-

Organization Development Journal, 27(3), 203 - 216. berlin.de/~health/turk.htm

Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998).

Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The
mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 523-538.

Rice, R. O. (2014). Examining the Moderating Effect of

Tenure on the Relationship Between Self-Leadership
Strategies and General Self-Efficacy (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3630452)

Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R.

(2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct?
Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242–
251.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-

Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M.
Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s
portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37).
Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect

effects in structural equations models. S. Leinhart
(Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290–312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011).

Self- Leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of
Management, 37(1), 185 – 222.

Şahin, F. (2011). The interaction of self-leadership and

psychological climate on job performance. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1787-1794.

Tabak, A., Sığrı, Ü., & Türköz, T. (2013). ÖzLiderlik

Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanma Çalışması. Bilig, 67,
213-246.

Van Zyl, E. (2008). The relation between stress and self-

leadership characteristics among a group of first-line
supervisors working in a state
organisation. TydskrifvirGeesteswetenskappe, 48,
454–466.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job

satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behavior. Journal of Management, 17, 601–618.

Wilson, J. H. (2014). Empowering Excellence: The

Relationship of Employee Self-Leadership and
Psychological Empowerment With Performance and
Job Satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3633681)

Yeşilay, A., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem M. (1997).

Turkish version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale.

View publication stats