comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

An extensive meta-analysis of the survey instruments developed by the Ohio State
studies has been carried out by Judge, Piccolo and Iles (2004). These authors found that
all the survey instruments had significant predictive validity for leader success, and they
found the LBDQXII to have the highest validities averaged across the overarching
dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure of their exhaustive array of studies
reviewed. Vecchio (1987) found the psychometric qualities of the LBDQXII, i.e., its
reliability and construct validity, to have received considerable attention and that it was
a widely accepted index of leader behaviour. In a review of reliability and validity of the
LBDQXII Schriesheim and Kerr (1974) concluded that, whilst not being a perfect set of
measures, “Its contents appear reasonably valid, it has been subjected to experimental
validation with successful results, and it does not confound frequency of behavior with
magnitude”.
Reliability of the LBDQXII
Littrell (2005) obtained six samples of LBDQXII data from the UK, Germany,
Romania, China, Uganda, and South Africa and examined the Item-Scale Reliabilities;
shown in Figure 4.7. Following my practice of an alpha of 0.6 being minimal
acceptable. The acceptability of scale reliability across these samples is mixed across
countries, and requires specific investigation in this study.
Figure 4.7. Item-Scale Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the Twelve LBDQ XII
Factors across Six Countries + New Zealand
No. Items
Leader Behaviour Dimension Defining
Factor
NZ* UK De Ro Cn‡ Ug ZA
F 1: Representation 5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
F 2: Demand Reconciliation 5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7
F 3: Tolerance of Uncertainty 10 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7
F 4: Persuasiveness 10 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8
F 5: Initiation of Structure 10 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
F 6: Tolerance of Freedom 10 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8
F 7: Role Assumption 10 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
F 8: Consideration 10 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6
F 9: Production Emphasis 10 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6
F 10: Predictive Accuracy 5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8
F 11: Integration 5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.9
F 12: Superior Orientation
*ISO country abbreviations.
10 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7
‡The China estimates from Zhengzhou City in Henan Province are problematic as to being representative
due to expected differences across culture areas.
For the samples in this study of Guangzhou and New Zealand I obtained the reliabilities
shown in Figure 4.8.
168