Home Business & Finance Distance Leadership in International Corporations: Why Organizations Struggle when Distances Grow
To measure performance of followers, a combination of previously deployed research tools was applied (Heilman et al., 1992; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In order to test whether the measure is internally consistent to assess individuals’ performance adequately, special attention was paid to scale statistics. Table 15 outlines the results for reliability and mean intercorrelatedness. The scale reveals good reliability with a = .88. It is therefore regarded as an adequate measure for performance selfassessment. Inter-item correlation turns out moderately higher than requested by Clark and Watson (1995).
Respondents were requested to indicate performance rating, responding to five questions on a five-point Likert scale. The mean value of 3.53 indicates a medium to high specification of performance, considering the possibility to give responses ranging from 1 (“I consistently perform way below expectation”) to 5 (“I consistently perform way above expectation”). Response scores are close, as all items have means ranging from 3.42 to 3.64. The lowest rating of performance is reported for item 3 (M = 3.42, SD = .73) asking “How well did you achieve your own job targets?”. The highest performance indication in responses of participants could be found with the last question, item number 5 (M = 3.64, SD = 0.66). Whereas the first four items refer to specific questions on job targets and time periods, the last item calls for an overall judgment of work quality (“How would you judge the overall quality of your work?”). Table 15 further highlights descriptive statistics for the five-item scale of individual follower job performance.
Table 15. Scale Statistics for Individual Performance
Note. Standard error of skewness = .126. Standard error of kurtosis = .252.
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|