Individualized Management Style Questionnaire

Abstract

The Individualized Management Style Questionnaire (IMSQ) is a psychological instrument developed to assess the quality of the specific, dyadic relationship between a supervisor and an employee. Grounded in the theory of Social Exchange, as proposed by Dansereau et al. (1998), the questionnaire captures two distinct dimensions of this relationship. The first dimension measures the extent of the promotion of self-esteem provided by the supervisor to the employee. The second dimension measures the employee’s perception of their satisfactory performance relative to the supervisor’s expectations. This instrument is typically completed by the employees themselves and is an adaptation of the original Individualized Leadership (IL) concept.

Keywords

Individualized Leadership, Leadership Style, Dyad, Social Exchange, Employee Performance, Self-esteem, Leadership, Organizational Psychology, VDL Model

Authors

The German adaptation and validation work was primarily conducted by Dr. Birgit Schyns and Dipl. Psych. Tina Paul. The theoretical foundation is based on the Individualized Leadership (IL) model developed by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975) and later refined by Dansereau et al. (1998).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire is to quantify the unique, individualized nature of the relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate. It aims to measure how effectively the supervisor tailors their leadership style to the specific needs and motivations of the individual employee, and the reciprocal satisfactory performance delivered by the employee in return. The scale provides insights into the quality of the social exchange within the dyad, which is crucial for understanding organizational outcomes like commitment and turnover intention.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Individualized Leadership (IL), a dyadic relationship concept stemming from the research tradition of the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). Individualized Leadership posits that supervisors treat subordinates differently and individually. This differentiation is characterized by a high degree of social exchange where employees are motivated by the supervisor promoting their self-esteem. In exchange, employees deliver performance that meets the supervisor’s expectations.

The IL model emphasizes that performance standards and methods of self-esteem promotion are unique to each dyad; there is no universal measure applicable across all group members. The resulting construct is operationalized through two distinct subscales: (1) Promotion of Employee Self-Worth by the Supervisor (5 items) and (2) Satisfactory Performance of Employees (6 items).

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s validity was established through examinations of convergent and divergent validity, primarily by correlating the subscales with established dyadic leadership instruments and performance criteria. The findings generally supported the theoretical expectations.

• Convergent Validity: The Promotion of Self-Worth subscale (FS) correlated highly with the German version of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX 7, r = .80) and the multidimensional LMX MDM (r = .71). This strong association confirms the conceptual overlap between IL and LMX models, as both address dyadically oriented leadership style.
• Criterion Validity: Both subscales correlated significantly in the expected direction with performance-related criteria. Specifically, the Promotion of Self-Worth subscale showed correlations with Organizational Commitment (r = .59) and a negative correlation with Fluctuation Tendency (r = -.41). Satisfactory Performance (long form) showed similar, albeit slightly lower, correlations (Commitment r = .46; Fluctuation Tendency r = -.31).
• Short Form Comparison: The correlations for the short form of the Satisfactory Performance subscale (ZLK, 3 items) were consistently lower than those for the long form (ZLL, 6 items), suggesting that the long form captures a broader range of the construct’s aspects.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, yielding results that range from satisfactory to very good, depending on the subscale and form utilized.

• Promotion of Employee Self-Worth: This five-item subscale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .91.
• Satisfactory Performance of Employees: The reliability of the long form (six items) was deemed satisfactory, showing a Cronbach’s Alpha of .75. The short form (three items) also demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .84.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood, oblimin rotation) was conducted to examine the dimensionality of the instrument on a sample of 252 employees.

• Overall Dimensionality (11 Items): An initial factor analysis across all 11 items yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 50.6% and 13.0% of the common variance, respectively. Factor 1 was clearly defined by the items measuring the Promotion of Self-Worth, while Factor 2 was primarily defined by the first three items of the Satisfactory Performance subscale. Items 5 and 6 of the Self-Worth scale showed significant association with Factor 2, and Item 4 of the Performance scale showed no substantial association with either factor.
• Subscale Dimensionality: Separate factor analyses were performed for each subscale.
  • Promotion of Self-Worth: This subscale showed a clear one-factor solution, explaining 73.92% of the common variance. Factor loadings ranged from .78 to .88, confirming its strong unidimensional structure.
  • Satisfactory Performance: Contrary to theoretical assumptions, this subscale initially yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. However, based on theoretical considerations and the steep drop-off in the scree plot, a one-factor solution was defended. When forced into a single-factor solution, the first three items showed high loadings (.74–.90), while the remaining three items showed lower but still acceptable loadings (.31–.46). The authors retained the six-item long form to ensure comprehensive coverage of the construct, while also validating a robust three-item short form based on the first three items.

Instrument

Test Type: Questionnaire (Self-report by employee)

Format: Paper-and-pencil or online administration using multi-point rating scales (5-point Likert scales).

Language Available: German (deutsch) for the documented version; original scale is English.

Population Group: Working adults/employees currently supervised by a manager.

Age Group: 17 to 61 years (M = 34.4 years in the validation sample).

Population Details: The validation sample included 252 employed individuals (109 men, 141 women) from diverse sectors in Germany (e.g., insurance, retail, education, IT, medical facilities).

Test Methodology: The questionnaire uses 5-point Likert scales, with anchors varying slightly between the two subscales. Scoring involves calculating a simple sum score for each subscale, which is then divided by the number of items. Higher scores indicate a greater promotion of employee self-worth or higher perceived satisfactory performance by the supervisor.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Internal Consistency, Convergent Validity, Divergent Validity, Organizational Commitment, Fluctuation Tendency, Supervisor-Subordinate Relationship, Dyadic Leadership

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: Dr. Birgit Schyns ([email protected]), Dipl. Psych. Tina Paul ([email protected])

Correspondence Address: Contact authors via email for further information, including detailed item characteristics and scale usage permissions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is based on the Individualized Leadership (IL) instrument (Dansereau et al., 1998). Specific details regarding current usage permissions and fees should be requested directly from the corresponding authors (Dr. Birgit Schyns or Dipl. Psych. Tina Paul). The German validation data presented here was collected and documented in the early 2000s.

Reference’s

• Baillod, J. M. (1992).

  Fluktuationstendenz: Entwicklung eines Instrumentes zu ihrer Messung und Untersuchung ihrer Zusammenhänge mit Arbeitszufriedenheit, Commitment und organisationalen Merkmalen.

  (Unpublished thesis). Universität Bern, Bern.

• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (1995).

  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation.

  Berlin: Springer.

• Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975).

  A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.

  Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.

• Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1998).

  Individualized leadership: A new perspective of management.

  Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 413-425.

• Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997).

  Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.

  Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

• Guthke, J., Böttcher, H., & Sprung, L. (1990).

  Psychodiagnostik: Grundlagen und ausgewählte Anwendungsgebiete.

  Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998).

  Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development.

  Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-62.

• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979).

  The measurement of organizational commitment.

  Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

• Paul, T., & Schyns, B. (2002).

  Die deutsche Version des multidimensionalen LMX MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).

  Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 46(2), 79-87.

• Schyns, B. (2002).

  Die deutsche Version des LMX 7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

  Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 46(1), 29-38.

• Schyns, B., & Paul, T. (2002).

  Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Eine Untersuchung der deutschen Version des LMX 7.

  Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 1(2), 65-71.

• Strack, F. (1994).

  Response processes in psychological measurement: A cognitive perspective.

  Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43(3), 323-346.

• van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996).

  Translating tests: Procedures and guidelines.

  European Psychologist, 1(2), 89-99.

Items of the Individualized management style questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Instruktion

Kreuzen Sie bitte bei den folgenden Fragen an, wie viel Sie davon von Ihrem bzw. Ihrer direkten Vorgesetzten bekommen. Lassen Sie bitte keine Frage aus. Es gibt keine richtigen oder falschen, keine guten und schlechten Antworten, sondern nur Ihr persönliches Gefühl.

Items

Antwortvorgaben

Skala Förderung des Selbstwerts der MitarbeiterInnen durch den/die Vorgesetzte(n): 5-stufige Ratingskalen mit den Optionen: 1 = sehr wenig, 2 = wenig, 3 = mittelmäßig, 4 = ziemlich viel, 5 = sehr viel.

Skala Zufriedenstellende Leistung der MitarbeiterInnen: 5-stufige Ratingskalen mit den Optionen:

Items 1-3: 1 = sehr unzufrieden, 2 = unzufrieden, 3 = weder noch, 4 = zufrieden, 5 = sehr zufrieden

Items 4-6: 1 = fast nie, 2 = selten, 3 = gelegentlich, 4 = oft, 5 = fast immer.