Addendum: The Role Motivation Theories of Organizational Leadership

Because this is programmed to be a short addendum, I plan to focus on a single topic – the use of macro-structural variables in leadership theories. Variables of this kind have been extensively emphasized in the recent period (see Johns, 2006; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006).

Role motivation theory has been part of this movement, as reflected in Table 1 of Miner (2002). Evidence in support of the construct validity of role motivation theory derives from a recent factor analysis (Miner, Jennifer, 2008) using the subscales of the Miner Sentence Completion Scales (MSCS) instruments. The result was a three-factor structure, which largely followed the theoretical structure of the Professional, Task, and Hierarchic MSCSs. In the three-factor solution, five of the hypothesized seven subscales loaded on a Hierarchic component (Factor 1), four of the five hypothesized subscales loaded on a Professional factor, and similarly four of the five subscales from Form T loaded together on a Task factor. Furthermore, where subscales could not be said to load substantially on a particular factor (<.40), they still loaded most highly on the factor to which they were hypothesized to belong. For example, the Routine Administrative Functions subscale from Form H loaded at approximately .30 on the Hierarchic component, which is greater than its loadings on either of the other two factors. The only exception to this rule was in the case of Avoiding Risks from Form T; this subscale loaded most highly on the Hierarchic factor (negatively). Overall, however, a preponderance of the evidence strongly supports the composition of the three role motivation theories. See Table 32.2 on page 432 of Miner, Jennifer (2008).