Development of an empowering

leadership scale for salespeople:

validation and reliability
Khahan Na-Nan, Suteeluck N. Kanthong and Kattikamat Khummueng

Abstract Khahan Na-Nan,

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore development and validation of an empowering Suteeluck N. Kanthong and
leadership instrument for salespeople. Kattikamat Khummueng all
Design/methodology/approach – In all, 20 items were developed for an empowering leadership are based at the Faculty of
instrument based on published research, concepts and theories. The instrument was applied as a cross- Business Administration,
sectional study for salespeople working in small and medium enterprises. The collected data were RMUTT, Khlong Hok,
assessed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to ascertain construct
Thailand.
validity.
Findings – The instrument established excellent reliability at 0.904. Five factors such as ‘‘Showing
concern and developing strong relationships with members’’, ‘‘informing’’, ‘‘coaching’’, ‘‘participative
decision making’’ and ‘‘leading by example’’ were extracted and validated from the exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis.
Originality/value – The validity of this questionnaire will facilitate future research to extend the
boundaries of empowering leadership measurement in the context of supervision and management in
organisations. This instrument will assist researchers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
empowering leadership and further investigate its potential in future studies.
Keywords Participative decision making, Coaching, Empowering leadership, Informing,
Showing concern, Showing concern and developing strong relationships, Leading by example
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Increasingly strong competition, rapid changes in the global business environment,
innovation and other related factors have culminated in changes in working styles and
operational procedures (Lui et al., 2010). To respond, employees must be prepared both
physically and psychologically to build problem-solving skills and enhance participation
through increased authority to make work decisions that maximise productivity. These
aspects are important factors for managing or modifying working styles to adapt to the
emerging changes. Leadership is also a significant factor which can influence modification
and creation to gain competitive advantages over rivals (Chow, 2018) and push and drive
production to achieve expected goals (Li and Zhang, 2016).
Empowering leadership is another important factor to enhance effectiveness and
successful performance (Akram et al., 2019), to upgrade employees’ potentials
and behaviours to operate their work assignments (Cheong et al., 2019; Jada and
Mukhopadhyay, 2019; Lee et al., 2014) and to encourage employees to keep learning (Li
and Zhang, 2016). Empowering leadership refers to leading by example, participative
Received 28 February 2020
decision-making, coaching, informing and showing concern and relation with members Revised 20 July 2020
(Arnold et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 2006). Such behaviours enhance and support Accepted 22 July 2020

DOI 10.1108/ICT-02-2020-0025 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j
 employees, working groups and organisations to work sustainably. Charoensiri et al. (2016)
studied leadership behaviours in Thailand. They found that leaders usually took centre
stage without employee participation and sought benefits only for themselves. This
behaviour prohibits successful operation of company employees. Practitioners and
administrators must understand and recognise how the characteristics of leadership are
expressed and instruments are needed to measure, quantify and further develop the
concept of leadership.
For research studies in Thailand, the keyword “empowering leadership” was used to search
papers in the Thai Digital Collection which is a database of research papers from academic
institutions in Thailand. No results for empowering leadership were found. Another retrieval
from ThaiJo, which is a large collection of electronic journals covering all domains in
Thailand and supported by the Thai Research Fund, found only two papers. These
presented the effects of empowering leadership on factors such as employee engagement,
job satisfaction, knowledge sharing and organisational performance. The scales used to
measure empowering leadership were adapted from foreign researchers, indicating the
lack of scale prototypes appropriate in Thai cultural contexts. This lack of material
demonstrates the existing knowledge gap for a scale to measure empowering leadership in
the Thai context.

Research objectives and questions

Empowering leadership studies are important and urgently required to expand the current
body of knowledge. Accordingly, the design of an accurate, valid and reliable instrument to
measure empowering leadership qualities is necessary to support people who are
interested in instrument studies. Therefore, here, a valid and reliable instrument for
measuring empowering leadership qualities was developed to answer the two main
research questions which are as follows:
RQ1. What are the constructs of empowering leadership?
RQ2. How can the effectiveness of an instrument for measuring empowering leadership
be confirmed?
Results will be useful for researchers, educators, students and members of the general
public who are interested in studies concerning empowering leadership.

Empowering leadership
Empowering leadership in the management context has been studied continuously since
the early 20th century. In those days, leadership was traditionally a top-down authoritarian
structure in which employees had no say in decision-making (Na-Nan, 2020a). Later, rapid
changes and academic advances in various domains modernised working operations,
giving employees more freedom to develop and increased management opportunities
(George and George, 2010). The concept of empowering leadership is derived from
promoting employee participation and involvement; leaders should share power with staff
members to enhance their performance (Kuo et al., 2011). Empowering leadership refers to
the creation of a conducive environment that enhances a sense of self-efficacy and control
among the workforce and eliminates factors that uphold feelings of powerlessness (Arnold
et al., 2000). Empowering leadership can be defined as sharing power and authority with
subordinates through raising their level of autonomy and responsibility (Jada and
Mukhopadhyay, 2019). Empowering leadership includes behaviours to upgrade
employees’ potentials to produce quality work by unleashing their imagination. This is
important in self-development, building good relationships among members and stimulating
inspirational development (Sawangsak and Thepsang, 2010). Empowering leadership can
be defined in two perspectives. The first covers social relationships that are interdependent

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

with social contexts to maintain organisational balance by using power to control oneself
independent from others and to empower one’s own potentials to express behaviours of
effective leaders. The other concerns the psychology of motivation, whereby power is used
to drive people’s perceived expectation, desire and self-efficacy (Liu, 2015). Empowering
leadership also involves behaviours that reinforce people’s creative thinking. From an
employee’s perspective, empowering leadership involves leading by example, participative
decision-making, coaching, informing and showing concern and developing strong
relationships with staff members (Arnold et al., 2000; Konczak et al., 2000; Özarall, 2015;
Polpanthin, 2016; Srivastava et al., 2006).
Leading by example refers to goal setting on the basis of employees’ potentials as well as
performing behavioural models for work operation and determination to achieve targets.
Arnold et al. (2000) stated that leading by example involves behaviours which express a
leader’s full devotion to work for team members to emulate and follow. Behavioural
standards may be regulated for employee compliance.
Participative decision-making refers to a leader’s behaviour to provide opportunities for
members to express their opinions, to enhance and support members to suggest their
ideas fully for solving emerging problems and to apply their suggestions and comments for
making decisions (Srivastava et al., 2006). Scott-Ladd and Marshall (2004) suggested that
participative decision-making caused positive effects on organisational development by
making employees believe in their work capabilities.
Coaching refers to a leader’s behaviour to develop effective employees, to support them to
solve their own work problems collaboratively with colleagues and to enhance information
sharing among members to perform work more effectively (Arnold et al., 2000; Srivastava
et al., 2006). Cheong et al. (2019) mentioned that coaching increases employees’ existing
skills and potentials to increase work effectiveness as an important mechanical aspect for
success.
Informing refers to behaviours that provide information for company members as guidelines
for decision-making, purposes or goals. Such information includes rules, regulations and
expectations as well as rationales for making decisions concerning work operations. Arnold
et al. (2000) explained that informing behaviour involves disseminating information relevant
to decision-making regarding different company policies to team members.
Showing concern and developing strong relationships with members refers to a leader’s
behaviour to pay equal attention to the success and problems of all members and to
allocate time for developing good relationships among members (Arnold et al., 2000;
Srivastava et al., 2006). Sookaneknun (2017) explained that showing concern represents
the perception of an organisation to value, take care of and support the creative thinking of
their employees and the authority to make decisions.

Scale of empowering leadership

Polpanthin (2016) created an empowering leadership instrument based on Kanter’s theory
of structural empowerment, 17 items of empowering leadership using a Likert scale. The
scale was examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test its construct validity.
Findings showed that his model was consistent with empirical data, giving high reliability at
0.70, while Konczak et al. (2000) adopted the concept of developing an empowering
leadership items and tested them using nurses employed at hospitals in the Republic of Fiji.
Their scale consisted of 17 items in six dimensions as authorisation, responsibilities,
decision-making, information sharing, skill development and coaching for effective
innovation; the alpha coefficient was 0.94. Arnold et al. (2000) developed a scale by
interviewing participants to determine effective and inflective behaviours of first-line or
direct managers with 19 items to measure behaviours of empowering leadership with
employees and administrators in two organisations. Data were analysed using exploratory

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

 factor analysis (EFA) and found to have five dimensions including giving suggestions,
informing, leading by example, showing concern and relation with members and
participative decision-making. Reliability was determined at 0.85.

Research methodology
The study population included salespeople in small and medium enterprises in the Bangkok
Metropolitan Region. Salespeople operate as the pumping heart of businesses to gain
benefits and increase growth (Udomphon et al., 2017). Salespeople usually work closely
with their managers through collaborative planning, information sharing and participative
decision-making (Boontang et al., 2016). They are also informed about important targets of
their departments and the organisation, while their potentials are continuously promoted
and upgraded (Namboonruang, 2012). The sample size was determined according to the
concepts of Lindeman (1980), who indicated that the ratio of items and samples should be
20:1. Here, 20 items were selected as proportional to 400 sample units. Henson and
Roberts (2006) stated that a sample size of 300 to 500 was sufficient for EFA. The
convenience sampling method was chosen to recruit the samples, and an online
questionnaire was sent to the targeted group of salespeople with complete directions and
other relevant details. The respondents voluntarily completed the questionnaire without the
requirement to disclose their identity.
Modified forms of the existing empowering leadership concepts, theories and scales of
Arnold et al. (2000), Konczak et al. (2000), Polpanthin (2016), Sawangsak and Thepsang
(2010) and Srivastava et al. (2006) were summarised, synthesised and used in the current
study context. Next, the important issues were identified and defined to develop items on a
five-level Likert scale as strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), indifferent (3), agree (4) and
strongly agree (5). The questionnaire was examined by five experts in the fields of human
resource management, human resource development, business administration, industrial
psychology and behavioural science. Results determined item-objective congruence (IOC)
at 0.8–1 and reliability at 0.803, consistent with the suggestion of Bonett and Wright (2015),
who stated that the alpha coefficient should be more than 0.60 to be regarded as having
internal consistency and reliability.
Various statistics were used to analyse each part of the data. Descriptive statistics were
used to explain the characteristics of the sample group and the level of variables, while EFA
was used to classify and identify construct relationships among the measuring items. IBM
SPSS 21.0 and CFA were used to confirm the constructs according to theories and
empirical data using IBM AMOS 21.0.

Data analysis
The study samples numbered 385: 51.90% female and 48.10% male. Respondents were
26–30 years old (37.40%), followed by 31–35 years (27.80%), 36–40 years (18.70%) and
more than 40 years (1.00%). About three quarters of the respondents were single (72.50%),
with married being 25.20% and divorced 2.30%. Regarding their educational levels, most
graduated with a bachelor’s degree (87.30%), followed by master’s degree (11.20%) and
doctoral degree (1.50%). The respondents had work experience of between 4 and 5 years
(37.70%), followed by 6–10 years (28.60%), 2–3 years (23.10%) and less than 1 year and
more than 10 years (10.70%). About half were employees (49.40%), with senior officers
being 39.70% and supervisors and managers 10.90%.

Exploratory factor analysis and validity study

The appropriateness of EFA was tested by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) method to
determine whether the number of samples was sufficient for measurement. The KMO value

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

was 0.841, while Barlett’s test gave 5,621.481 with 190 degrees of freedom (df) at p-value
0.001. After examining the primary terms of EFA, orthogonal Varimax rotation was used to
rotate the squared factor weights in each column in the matrix. Factors with maximum value
were classified into five factors. The percentage of accumulative variance was 73.663 of all
variance. The variance of Factor 1 could explain variance up to 29.718%, whereas Factors
2, 3, 4 and 5 could explain total variances at 17.430, 11.092, 9.681 and 5.743%,
respectively.
Table 1 shows the EFA results consisting of five factors. The first factor of “showing concern
and relation with members” included items EL 16, EL 17, EL 18, EL 19 and EL 20 with factor
weights between 0.737 and 0.899. The second factor of “informing” included items EL 12,
EL 13, EL 14 and EL 15 with factor weights between 0.741 and 0.932. The third factor of
“coaching” included items EL 8, EL 9, EL 10 and EL 11 with factor weights between 0.784
and 0.887. The fourth factor of “participative decision making” included items EL 4, EL 5, EL
6 and EL 7 with factor weights between 0.689 and 0.842. The last factor of “leading by
example” included items of EL 1, EL 2 and EL 3 with factor weights between 0.811 and
0.877. Results were consistent with the concept of Hair et al. (2013), who stated that factor
weights should be more than 0.500, with values of 0.700 or over being regarded as a very
good factor weight. Here, EFA showed factor weights between 0.689 and 0.932; they were
considered appropriate at a very good level.
After conducting exhausting and comprehensive EFA, the first research question “What are
the constructs of empowering leadership” was answered. Five constructs of empowering
leadership, that is, showing concern and relations with members, informing, coaching,
participative decision-making and leading by example were determined and statistically
tested as valid.

Confirmatory factor analysis and validity study

CFA was performed to test whether the construct validities of the variables were consistent
with the empirical data. Statistical analyses included Chi-square ( x 2), relative Chi-square
( x 2/df), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit

Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis results of the empowering leadership questionnaire

Component
Statements I II III IV V

EL 1 Leaders set challenging goals on the basis of my capabilities 0.811

EL 2 Leaders devote full effort to work 0.877
EL 3 Leaders show good examples of good behaviours 0.834
EL 4 Leaders provide opportunities for members to fully express their opinions 0.761
EL 5 Leaders stimulate members to express and suggest ideas to solve problems 0.832
EL 6 Leaders make decisions on the basis of members’ ideas 0.842
EL 7 Leaders use members’ suggestions to solve problems and make decisions 0.689
EL 8 Leaders reflect on development and provide additional training for members 0.812
EL 9 Leaders support members to solve problems together 0.887
EL 10 Leaders usually suggest that members seek ways to solve problems by themselves 0.784
EL 11 Leaders encourage members to share knowledge and information among one another 0.817
EL 12 Leaders explain guidelines of an organisation’s decision making 0.932
EL 13 Leaders explain an organisation’s objectives and expectation to members 0.640
EL 14 Leaders explain relevant rules and regulations to members 0.932
EL 15 Leaders explain an organisation’s decision-making and operation to members 0.741
EL 16 Leaders deal equally with team members 0.737
EL 17 Leaders show concern regarding team members’ successes 0.899
EL 18 Leaders pay attention to members’ personal problems 0.877
EL 19 Leaders support good relationships among members in an organisation 0.881
EL 20 Leaders allocate time for conversing with members 0.823

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

 index (CFI), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) (Byrne, 2016; Kline, 2015). Two orders of CFA were performed.
The first-order analysis examined whether the items EL 16, EL 17, EL 18, EL 19 and EL 20
were components of latent factors in showing concern and relation with members; items EL
12, EL 13, EL 14 and EL 15 were components of informing; items EL 8, EL 9, EL 10 and EL
11 were components of coaching; items EL 4, EL 5, EL 6 and EL 7 were components of
participative decision-making; and items EL1, EL2 and EL3 were components of leading by
example. Second-order CFA examined whether latent factors in five dimensions from the
first-order analysis were factors of empowering leadership. Figure 1 shows the fit model and
empirical data with results of x 2 = 162.948, df = 138, p = 0.072, x 2/df = 1.181, GFI = 0.960,
AGFI = 0.940, CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.022 and SRMR = 0.025. These results were

Figure 1 Empowering leadership structural model

EL 16

EL 17

I
EL 18
R 2 = 0.190
EL 19

EL 20

EL 12

II EL 13
R 2 = 0.177
EL 14

EL 15

EL 8

EL 9
Empowering III
leadership R = 0.534
2
EL 10

EL 11

EL 4

EL 5
IV
R = 0.666
2
EL 6

EL 7

EL 1

V EL 2
R 2 = 0.472
EL 3

Chis-quare = 162.948, df = 138, p = 0.072, GF I = 0.960, AGF I = 0.940,

RMSEA = 0.022 and RMR = 0.025

Notes: I: Showing concern and developing strong relationships with members,

II: Informing, III: Coaching, IV: Participative decision-making, V: Leading by
example

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

consistent with the concepts of Byrne (2016), who indicated that an appropriate x 2/df
should be less than 2, while GFI, AGFI and CFI should be more than 0.900 or close to 1.000;
RMR should not be more than 0.020 and RMSEA should not be more than 0.05.
Results of the first-order factor analysis with 20 items indicated that the first dimension of
showing concern and relation with members had factor weights of 0.577–0.906 with R2 at
0.333–0.822. The second dimension of informing had factor weights of 0.677–0.987 with R2
at 0.458–0.973. The third dimension of coaching had factor weights of 0.631–0.859 with R2
at 0.398–0.738. The fourth dimension of participative decision-making had factor weights of
0.700–0.910 with R2 at 0.489–0.829. The last dimension of leading by example (EL 1–EL 3)
had factor weights of 0.804–0.897 with R2 at 0.646–0.804. For the second-order CFA
contained in five dimensions which consisted of, leading by example, participative
decision-making, coaching, informing and showing concern and relation with members had
factor weights at 0.687, 0.905, 0.731, 0.421 and 0.687, 0.905, 0.731, 0.421 and 0.436
respectively; with R2 at 0.472, 0.666, 0.534, 0.177 and 0.190 respectively (Table 2). Weights
from both first- and second-order factor analyses were statistically significant in all values,
as they were more than 0.300 (p < 0.050) (Kim and Mueller, 1978). For predicting values of
variance, some R2 values in five dimensions were low, especially items EL6, EL11, EL13,
EL15 and EL20 with R2 lower than 0.500. Tayraukham (2010) stated that R2 with low CFA
value indicated that the items or variables did not cover the scope of the study. Similarly,
Stone et al. (2013) suggested that R2 may be lower than 0.500 because studies in
behavioural science or psychology rely on descriptive prediction of human behaviour. This
is difficult to predict because behaviour changes continuously.

Table 2 Construct validity of first and second-order confirmatory factor analysis results
First-order CFA construct validity Second-order CFA construct validity
Factor
Latent factors/Statements loading R2 CR AVE Factor loading R2 CR AVE

Empowering leadership (EL) 0.782 0.438

Showing concern and developing 0.891 0.627 0.436 0.190
strong relationships with members
EL 16 0.861 0.741
EL 17 0.811 0.658
EL 18 0.765 0.586
EL 19 0.906 0.822
EL 20 0.577 0.333
Informing 0.882 0.658 0.421 0.177
EL 12 0.860 0.740
EL 13 0.677 0.458
EL 14 0.987 0.973
EL 15 0.680 0.462
Coaching 0.861 0.611 0.731 0.534
EL 8 0.785 0.617
EL 9 0.859 0.738
EL 10 0.832 0.692
EL 11 0.631 0.398
Participative decision-making 0.756 0.666 0.905 0.666
EL 4 0.890 0.792
EL 5 0.910 0.829
EL 6 0.700 0.489
EL 7 0.746 0.556
Leading by example 0.879 0.709 0.687 0.472
EL 1 0.823 0.678
EL 2 0.897 0.804
EL 3 0.804 0.646

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

 Regarding first-order composite reliability (CR) on construct validity in Table 2, the results of
CFA gave the value of leading by example at 0.879, participative decision-making at 0.756,
coaching at 0.861, informing at 0.882 and showing concern and relation with members at
0.891. CR values of all five dimensions were over 0.70 and regarded as statistically
significant (Hair et al., 2013). For average variance extracted (AVE), leading by example
was at 0.709, participative decision-making 0.666, coaching 0.611, informing at 0.658 and
showing concerning and relation with members 0.627. All values were more than 0.500 and
considered as statistically significant (Na-Nan, 2020b; Zait and Bertea, 2011).
Discriminant validity was examined on instrument measurability according to theoretical
concepts. The instrument was analysed following Fornell and Larcker (1981), who stated
that the square root of the AVE value should be more than the relationships in rows and
columns for a particular construct. Findings showed that the square roots of the AVE values
were more than the relationships in rows and columns, consistent with the criteria as shown
in Table 3.
CFA was then used to answer the second research question, “How can the effectiveness of
an instrument for measuring empowering leadership be confirmed?” CFA indicated that an
instrument with five constructs of showing concern and relations with members, informing,
coaching, participative decision-making and leading by example could be used to
effectively measure empowering leadership.

Discussion
Findings showed consistency between theories and empirical data. The 20 empowering
leadership items were developed through factor analyses, with five factors conforming to
previous proposals by researchers and educators. The EFA weights of each item were
more than 0.60 (Chin et al., 1997; Hair et al., 2013), indicating that the relationships between
variables and factors were at acceptable levels. Both orders of factor analysis were used to
examine the fit of empirical data and theoretical concepts according to the fit indices of
Byrne (2016) and Kline (2015). In all, 20 items were developed following the concepts of
Polpanthin (2016), Arnold et al. (2000) and Konczak et al. (2000) in five factors (in the first
order) and all were confirmed as factors of empowering leadership (in the second order).
Each factor weight was more than 0.30 (p < 0.05) (Arifin and Yusoff, 2016; Yusoff et al.,
2011). For discriminant validity, the developed items were found to be valid according to the
relevant theoretical concepts. Fornell and Larcker (1981) stated that the square root of the
AVE value should be more than the relationships in rows and columns. Results indicated
that the questionnaire had high reliability at 0.904 (Taber, 2018).
Findings showed that showing concern and developing strong relationships with members
was a behaviour that required equal attention to resolve problems, enhance success in
work operations and ensure good relations by allocating time for regular conversations. This
factor was measured by five items developed from the given definitions. These items were
tested with advanced statistics to examine validity and reliability of the instrument to
increase measurement accuracy. This process was consistent with the concept of

Table 3 Discriminant validity analysis

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Showing concern and developing strong relationships with members 4.090 0.687 (0.792)
2. Informing 4.090 0.577 0.255 (0.811)
3. Coaching 3.973 0.690 0.279 0.289 (0.782)
4. Participative decision making 4.121 0.597 0.401 0.365 0.654 (0.816)
5. Leading by example 3.878 0.752 0.187 0.320 0.417 0.537 (0.842)
Reliability value after the validation test was 0.904
Notes:  Indicates a 0.01 significance level; values in parentheses represent the square root of AVE

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

Sookaneknun (2017), who explained that showing concern to members is a measure of how
much a company values their employees by taking care of and supporting them to develop
creative thinking and the authority to make decisions. The factor of informing provided
information concerning targets, rules, regulations and decision-making to members and
was measured by four developed items, consistent with the concept of Arnold et al. (2000)
that informing involved disseminating important information concerning decision-making.
The factor of coaching involved leadership behaviours to enhance staff development and
training as well as support problem-solving among and between departments. This factor
was measured by four items covering the given definitions. These items were tested with
advanced statistics to improve validity and reliability of the instrument. This was consistent
with the concept of Côté and Gilbert (2009), who explained that coaching applies
experience to increase work efficiency, enable employees to learn how to solve work
problems and hone skills. Participative decision-making involved leadership behaviours that
provide opportunities and encourage members to express their opinions to solve problems
on the basis of mutual decision-making and then apply such ideas. This factor was
measured by four items developed according to the given definition. The items were tested
with advanced statistics to improve validity and reliability of the scale. This was consistent
with the concept of Scott-Ladd and Marshall (2004), who indicated that participative
decision-making enables employees to participate in setting operational guidelines and
problem-solving and then using the results to improve company productivity. The final
factor of leading by example required devoting effort and ability as a role model while
setting goals appropriate for employees’ capabilities. This factor was measured by three
developed items according to the given definitions. These items were examined to improve
the validity and reliability of the scale. This was consistent with the concept of Arnold et al.
(2000), who posited that leading by example is a behaviour for members to follow by setting
appropriate standards.

Theoretical and practical implications

The findings support existing concepts and theories of empowering leadership and results
can be used to extend knowledge, particularly in Thai or other similar contexts. Educators
can use these results to explain the characteristics of empowering leadership such as five
factors comprising showing concern and relation with members, informing, coaching,
participative decision-making and leading by example. The items were developed and
tested intensively, and they can be further studied and applied as the latest instrument for
measuring empowering leadership in the Thai context. Educators and researchers can use
this scale of empowering leadership as an initiator to measure levels or test with other
variables.
The scale was developed and extensively tested for validity and reliability using advanced
statistics. Executives can use this scale to measure empowering leadership of
administrators at different levels and then analyse the results to determine the guidelines for
promotion and development of administrators. Results can also be used to explain the
expression of empowering leadership of administrators. Executive officers should enhance
and support administrators to manifest their empowering leadership to promote effective
company management.

Limitations and future research

One limitation of this cross-sectional study conducted at a particular period in time is that it
may not reflect real long-term effects and have study errors. A longitudinal study using the
same samples would be helpful to reflect the findings with more accuracy and validity. This
research also adopted only one group of engineers and used the Thai language. Thus, the
scale was limited and lacked variety. Future research should use this developed scale with

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

 a variety of samples covering diverse contexts, cultures, languages and company size to
maximise quality and further test scale robustness.

Conclusion
The results of this study showed positive responses to the two main questions stated in the
research objectives. In answer to the first question, empowering leadership consists of five
constructs which are showing concern and relation with members, informing, coaching,
participative decision-making and leading by example. Answers to the second question
were confirmed by statistical method and results show that all five constructs were
appropriate to be put in a scale used for measuring empowering leadership. The research
results contribute significant knowledge to leadership in relation to the impact of
empowering leadership on management. However, further studies are needed to improve
the scale, as context, culture and workplace locations seem to influence variations in
empowering leadership. More comparative studies in empowering leadership would
advance knowledge in the fields of leadership, organisational behaviour, administration and
management.

References
Akram, M.U., Chauhan, C., Ghosh, K. and Singh, A. (2019), “Knowledge management, sustainable
business performance and empowering leadership: a firm-level approach”, International Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 20-35.
Arifin, W.N. and Yusoff, M.S.B. (2016), “Confirmatory factor analysis of the Universiti Sains Malaysia
emotional quotient inventory among medical students in Malaysia”, SAGE Open, Vol. 6 No. 2, doi:
10.1177/2158244016650240.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Bonett, D.G. and Wright, T.A. (2015), “Cronbach’s alpha reliability: interval estimation, hypothesis testing,
and sample size planning”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Boontang, J., Layraman, T. and Visanumahimachai, S. (2016), “Factors affecting the success of
Japanese automobile salesmen in Chiang Mai”, Journal of Southern Technology, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 109-144.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.

Charoensiri, C., Getsuwan, R. and Girdwichai, N. (2016), “Local autonomy, leadership of local leaders,
and citizen-centered local governance: a case study of local administration in Mahasarakham province”,
Chophayom Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 73-81.
Cheong, M., Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Spain, S.M. and Tsai, C.-Y. (2019), “A review of the
effectiveness of empowering leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 34-58.
Chin, W.W., Gopal, A. and Salisbury, W.D. (1997), “Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: the
development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 342-367.

Chow, I.H.S. (2018), “The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity relationship”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Côté, J. and Gilbert, W. (2009), “An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise”,
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 307-323.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
George, B. and George, B. (2010), “The new 21st century leaders”, [online] Harvard Business Review
(accessed April 30 2010)”.

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2013), Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New
International Edition, Pearson Higher Ed, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Henson, R.K. and Roberts, J.K. (2006), “Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:
common errors and some comment on improved practice”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 393-416.
Jada, U.R. and Mukhopadhyay, S. (2019), “Empowering leadership and LMX as the mediators between
leader’s personality traits and constructive voice behavior”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 74-93.
Kim, J.-O. and Mueller, C.W. (1978), Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, Sage
Publication, London.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Publications,
London.
Konczak, L.J., Stelly, D.J. and Trusty, M.L. (2000), “Defining and measuring empowering leader
behaviors: development of an upward feedback instrument”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 301-313.

Kuo, R.Z., Lai, M.F. and Lee, G.G. (2011), “The impact of empowering leadership for KMS adoption”,
Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1120-1140.
Lee, J., Lee, H. and Park, J.-G. (2014), “Exploring the impact of empowering leadership on knowledge
sharing, absorptive capacity and team performance in IT service”, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 366-386.
Li, M. and Zhang, P. (2016), “Stimulating learning by empowering leadership: can we achieve cross-level
creativity simultaneously?”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 1168-1186.

Lindeman, R.H. (1980), Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis, Foresman and Co, London.
Liu, Y.Y. (2015), “The review of empowerment leadership”, Open Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 476-482.
Lui, W., Zhu, R. and Yang, Y. (2010), “I warn you because I like you: voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 189-202.
Namboonruang, S. (2012), Sale Management, SE-ED, Bangkok.
Na-Nan, K. (2020a), Organizational Behavior, Triple Education, Bangkok.
Na-Nan, K. (2020b), Organizational Behavior Scale Development, Triple Education, Bangkok.
Özarall, N. (2015), “Linking empowering leader to creativity: the moderating role of psychological (felt)
empowerment”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 181 No. 1, pp. 366-376.
Polpanthin, Y. (2016), “The effect of empowering leadership behavior, self-efficacy, work engagement,
job satisfaction on teacher’s job performance”, Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 311-322.

Sawangsak, T. and Thepsang, S. (2010), “A relationship between strategic management, teacher

empowerment and continuous improvement with quality leadership of school administrators under the
office of Bangkok educational service area”, Srinakharinwirot Research and Development (Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences), Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 74-84.

Scott-Ladd, B. and Marshall, V. (2004), “Participation in decision making: a matter of context?”,

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 646-662.
Sookaneknun, S. (2017), “Management governance and business performance: an empirical
investigation on hotel businesses in Thailand”, Chulalongkorn Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 115-131.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.

Stone, B.K. Scibilia, B. Pammer, C. Steele, C. and Keller, D. (2013), “Regression analysis: how do I interpret R-
squared and assess the goodness-of-Fit?”, available at: http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-
2/regression-analysis-how-do-i-interpret-r-squared-and-assess-the-goodness-of-fit (accessed 8 August
2019).

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j

 Taber, K.S. (2018), “The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in
science education”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1273-1296.

Tayraukham, S. (2010), Advanced Statistics for Educational Research, Mahasarakham University,

Mahasarakham.
Udomphon, P., Sujchaphong, N. and Waranantakul, O. (2017), “Relationships between sales promotion
strategies and marketing performance of car dealer businesses in northeast Thailand”, Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 110-121.
Yusoff, M.S.B., Rahim, A.F.A., Mat Pa, M.N., See, C.M., Ja’afar, R. and Esa, A.R. (2011), “The validity and
reliability of the USM emotional quotient inventory (USMEQ-i): its use to measure emotional quotient (EQ)
of future medical students”, International Medical Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 293-299.
Zait, A. and Bertea, P. (2011), “Methods for testing discriminant validity”, Management & Marketing
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 217-224.

Corresponding author
Khahan Na-Nan can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j