AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
![]() Finally, convergent validity was explored by using the University of Florida Engagement, Cognitive Maturity, and Innovativeness assignment (UF-EMI) and the Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to further investigate the constructs proposed by Kelley.īased on this purpose, the following hypotheses were tested: To identify social desirability response bias, the Marlowe-Crowne scale (M-C SDS scale) was used. The data collected was analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and appropriate reliability statistics were developed. To accomplish a review of the instrument, the KFQ questions were simplified, updated, and aligned with dimensions that they represent. The purpose of this study was to examine the structure of the model and provide an empirical investigation of a revised KFQ (KFQ-R). Sixth, the language used in the survey is outdated and difficult to comprehend (Gatti et al., 2014). Many survey questions include two items linked by conjunctions. Fifth, the language used in the KFQ is complicated due to the use of compound questions (double-barreled). Fourth, validity and reliability of the KFQ is still not significantly supported (Blanchard et al., 2009 Gatti et al., 2014 Colangelo, 2000 Seeley, 2007). ![]() Third, Kelley’s model is limited to two dimensions however, the KFQ may measure more than just two dimensions (Blanchard et al., 2009 Colangelo, 2000 Gatti et al., 2014 Seeley, 2007). Also, the questions need to be simplified to increase response rates by decreasing test taking time and increasing the level of respondent comprehension (Salant & Dillman, 1994). The listed questions need to be reworded to measure the dimensions proposed by Kelley (Seeley, 2007). Second, the structure and proposed dimensions by Kelley for the majority of questions did not match the theoretical constructs of independent, critical thinking and engagement (Blanchard et al., 2009 Colangelo, 2000 Gatti et al., 2014 Ghislieri et al., 2015 Seeley, 2007). Thomas (2014) warns that the survey questions may prompt participants to indicate higher scores for independent, critical thinking and active engagement which may skew the true followership picture and prompt followers to score higher in more active follower types. First, the survey questions may contain social desirability response bias (Blanchard et al., 2009 Gatti et al., 2014). There are six methodological issues with Kelley’s model that need further analysis. (2015) found significant empirical support for an Italian 8-item KFQ. (2014) supported an Italian 14-item KFQ questionnaire based on the original KFQ, while Ghislieri et al. (2009), Colangelo (2000) and Seeley (2007) did not find consistent validity support for the KFQ however, Gatti et al. The remaining studies focused on follower types and organizational outcomes (Favara, 2009, Gatti et al., 2014 Kalkhoran et al., 2013 Morgan, 2014 Seeley, 2007) however, only five investigations focused on validity and reliability support for the instrument. Second, the KFQ was utilized in investigating relationships between follower types and other behavioral and psychological traits (Burke, 2009 Gatti et al., 2014 Tanoff & Barlow, 2002). First, the KFQ was used to explore follower types within organizations (Al-Anshory & Ali, 2014 Francis, 2014 Kalkhoran, Naami, & Beshlideh, 2013 Oyetunji, 2013 Thomas, 2014 Vandoren, 1998). Despite this fact, the KFQ is implemented in followership research through multiple studies. Although Kelley’s model is cited as an important contribution (Crossman & Crossman, 2011 Chaleff, 2009 Kellerman, 2007 Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008), the KFQ has not been widely tested and lacks broad empirical support. Kelley developed the KFQ with the purpose of helping followers identify their type and strive for increased independent, critical thinking and active engagement. However, the two dimensions that construct Kelley’s model–independent, critical thinking and active engagement–need further investigation. By utilizing these dimensions, Kelley’s purpose included helping organizations promote and develop exemplary followers, who add value to the organization. Kelley defined five types of followers: Passive, Exemplary, Alienated, Conformist, and Pragmatist. ![]() Kelley significantly influenced the field of followership through the development of his two-dimensional model, from which he developed the Kelley Followership Questionnaire (KFQ). ![]() Additionally, followers are responsible for 80 percent of organizational outcomes (Kelley, 1992). Robert Kelley described followers as “thinking for themselves, giving constructive criticism, owning their own person, and being innovative and creative” (Kelley, 1992, p. A follower is a person who makes a decision whether or not to collaborate with a leader in order to achieve an organizational purpose. “Followership” emerged as a new area of study during the early 1990’s. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |