Assessing constructive supervisor behavior: Development and evaluation of a brief follower‐rated scale

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21339
• Author: Helena D. Cooper‐Thomas,Ann Hutchison,Jamie L. Callahan,Tago L. Mharapara
• Date: 01 June 2019
• Published date: 01 June 2019

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Assessing constructive supervisor behavior:

Development and evaluation of a brief follower-

rated scale

Tago L. Mharapara

1

| Helena D. Cooper-Thomas

1

| Ann Hutchison

2

|

Jamie L. Callahan

3

1

Department of Management, AUT Business

School, Auckland University of Technology,

Auckland, New Zealand

2

Department of Management and

International Business, University of Auckland

Business School, The University of Auckland,

Auckland, New Zealand

3

Leadership & HRM Department, Newcastle

Business School, Northumbria University

Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Correspondence

Tago L. Mharapara, Management Department,

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,

New Zealand.

Email: t.mharapara@aut.ac.nz;

tagomharapara@gmail.com

Followers are thought to be keenly attuned to supervisor behaviors

because these can affect their learning, well-being, and perfor-

mance at work. However, a practical and empirically tested

measure of constructive supervisor behaviors that are valued by

followers is not available in the literature. We develop a Construc-

tive Supervisor Behavior Scale (CSBS) that is suitable for human

resource development purposes and we assess its psychometric

properties across three studies. In Study 1, exploratory factor anal-

ysis is conducted on data collected from employees in

New Zealand and the United States (N= 333). This resulted in a

four-factor structure comprising ethical conduct, networking, clari-

fying, and recognizing behaviors. In Study 2, confirmatory factor

analyses are used to assess the four-factor structure of the CSBS

on New Zealand-based employees (N= 250). In Study 3, the con-

vergent and discriminant validity of the CSBS are examined on

office-based employees in the United States (N= 342); additional

measurement invariance analyses are conducted with the

New Zealand and U.S. samples.

KEYWORDS

constructive supervisor behavior, leader development,

measurement invariance, researcher-practitioner gap

1|INTRODUCTION

Follower perceptions of leader behaviors in organizations have been linked to a range of follower outcomes including

satisfaction with supervision (Jernigan & Beggs, 2005), affective commitment (Djibo, Desiderio, & Price, 2010), work

engagement (De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014), and performance (Deluga, 1994). In a

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21339

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2019;30:197–218. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 197

systematic review of research examining the relationship between leader behaviors and employee outcomes, Skakon,

Nielsen, Borg, and Guzman (2010) showed that positive, or constructive, leader behaviors (e.g., support, feedback,

and integrity) are related to employee affective well-being, reduced stress, and greater ability to cope withstress.

Given the positive individual and organizational effects of constructive leader behavior, it is no wonder that man-

agement and leadership training represent the biggest expenditure in many organizations' training and development

portfolios (Association for Talent Development, 2017). Because of the costs (e.g., money, work disruption) involved

with initiating a leader behavior development program, a prudent organization may want to take steps to maximize

the benefit of these programs. From a performative perspective, mechanisms to more easily conduct a needs assess-

ment would likely be welcomed measures to help achieve such maximization efforts. However, gaining a deeper

awareness of these constructive behaviors for leaders themselves and a broader understanding of where and how

these behaviors manifest within the organization can provide more than simply a financial return to both the individ-

ual and the organization.

While a variety of leader behavior measures exist (e.g., 360) that can be adapted for gaining greater insights into

individual and organizational development, these tend to be resource-intensive in terms of time and financial costs

(Herd, Alagaraja, & Cumberland, 2016; Wiley & Lake, 2014). In this research, we detail the development of a short

but rigorously derived measure of leader behavior that is associated with effectiveness. We contend that a brief mea-

sure is sorely needed and will be a boon for both human resource development (HRD) practitioners and scholars. As

Callahan and Connor (2015) note, the ability to provide quantitative data can be particularly effective in initiating or

cementing change, even in the face of power dynamics. Data derived from a short measure can be used at the orga-

nizational level to obtain management support for training, at the program level to identify areas for training content

development, and at the individual level for leaders' self-awareness. For applied researchers, balancing the tension

between relevance and rigor is an enduring challenge (Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001). A brief but psycho-

metrically sound measure of effective leader behavior may increase organizations' willingness to collaborate with

scholars because it levies minimal demands on employee time.

Thus, we develop a brief Constructive Supervisor Behavior Scale (CSBS) using contemporary scale development

and abridging methods (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). We define constructive super-

visor behavior as beneficial supervisor actions that followers value because they facilitate employee performance

(individual, work unit, and organizational) and well-being. Our definition is derived from research on leader behavior

associated with effectiveness (Hamlin & Hatton, 2013; Yukl, 2012). We use the terms leader, leadership, and leader

behavior to present and discuss theory. However, at the empirical level and in discussing findings from the current

research, we use the term supervisor because it clearly identifies the direct leader of any follower respondent. Thus,

a supervisor is a leader whose behavior influences the performance and well-being of a team, work unit, or organiza-

tion (Skakon et al., 2010; Yukl, 2012).

1.1 |Theoretical context

To understand the central role of constructive leader behavior in followers, we turn to the HRD literature because of

its theoretical and empirical influence on leader behavior and development research. Empirical research in HRD has

examined the nature of effective leader behavior (Kowske & Anthony, 2007; Patel & Hamlin, 2012) and categorized

antecedents of effective leader behavior (Ardichvili, Jondle, & Kowske, 2012; Ruiz, Hamlin, & Carioni, 2016). Theo-

retical and conceptual work in HRD has attempted to delineate effective (constructive) leader behaviors and compe-

tencies (Cumberland, Herd, Alagaraja, & Kerrick, 2016; Herd et al., 2016; Hezlett, 2008). Indeed, Kim and Callahan

(2013) suggest that leadership, and its impact on learning, is the foundation of organizational performance. They pos-

tulate that leadership concepts from the transfer of learning and organizational learning literature can be combined

to improve organizational performance. Because of the systemic nature of organizational learning, we begin with that

lens to frame the importance of leader behavior for HRD professionals.

198 MHARAPARA ET AL.