German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS)

Abstract

The German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to measure leadership behaviors according to Gary Yukl’s (2012) integrative four-meta-category taxonomy of managerial practices. Developed by Dr. Josef A. Fischer, the GMPS addresses a critical gap in organizational diagnostics and leadership assessment within German-speaking contexts by providing a concise, theoretically grounded measurement tool. The scale comprises 15 items operationalizing four distinct yet interrelated behavioral dimensions: Task-Orientation (Aufgabenorientierung; 4 items), Relation-Orientation (Beziehungsorientierung; 4 items), Change-Orientation (Veränderungsorientierung; 4 items), and External Orientation (Externe Orientierung; 3 items). Administered via a Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing or web-based format (CSAQ) with an average completion duration of approximately four minutes, the instrument utilizes a standardized five-point percentage response scale ranging from 0 (überhaupt nicht [not at all]) to 100 (in sehr hohem Maße [to a very great extent]) in increments of 25.

Psychometric evaluation based on an occupational sample of 328 employees reporting to diverse supervisors confirmed robust measurement properties. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with Promax oblique rotation yielded a four-factor structure accounting for 60% of total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated good model fit (χ² = 180.35, df = 84, p < .001, CFI = .93, IFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06) with standardized factor loadings ranging between .48 and .84. Internal consistency coefficients are satisfactory to good across subscales for both Cronbach’s alpha (α = .70 to .81) and McDonald’s omega (ω = .71 to .82). Substantial correlations with related leadership criteria—including identification with the leader (r = .16 to .44), satisfaction with the leader (r = .14 to .52), and psychological safety (r = .14 to .40)—provide strong evidence for convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity, with relation-orientation consistently manifesting the highest predictive potency. The GMPS constitutes an economically efficient, valid diagnostic instrument suitable for empirical research, upward appraisals, 360-degree feedback, and organizational climate diagnostics.

Keywords

German Managerial Practice Survey, GMPS, leadership behavior, managerial practices, Gary Yukl, task-orientation, relation-orientation, change-orientation, external orientation, psychometrics, leadership assessment, organizational psychology, psychological safety, flexible leadership.

Authors

The German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS) was developed and validated by Dr. Josef A. Fischer, an organizational psychologist and leadership researcher specializing in psychometrics, organizational diagnostics, and leadership development. Inquiries regarding academic use, diagnostic implementation, or collaborative research initiatives may be directed to the primary author via correspondence email: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary purpose of the German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS) is to provide a standardized, psychometrically rigorous, and highly economical diagnostic instrument to evaluate behavioral leadership practices within German-speaking organizational environments. Historically, leadership research and applied organizational diagnostics have relied either on classical two-factor models (such as initiating structure and consideration) or on transformational-transactional leadership paradigms (e.g., the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). However, contemporary organizational environments are characterized by volatility, cross-functional collaboration, open systems interdependence, and continuous strategic change. To capture this complexity, Gary Yukl (2008, 2012) formulated a comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy incorporating task, relations, change, and external boundary-spanning behaviors. Despite the theoretical superiority of this four-meta-category framework, researchers and human resource practitioners in German-speaking countries previously lacked a concise, validated questionnaire operationalizing all four dimensions simultaneously.

The GMPS was specifically constructed to resolve this psychometric deficit. In applied human resource and organizational development settings, the scale serves multiple diagnostic functions:

• Multi-Source and 360-Degree Feedback: The instrument allows direct reports to provide systematic upward feedback regarding their focal manager’s behavioral profile across internal and external behavioral domains.
• Leadership Development and Self-Assessment: Managers can utilize the GMPS as a self-reflective diagnostic inventory within executive coaching or leadership development programs, identifying discrepancies between their self-perception and subordinate evaluations to design targeted behavioral interventions.
• Employee Opinion Surveys and Organizational Audits: Administered organization-wide, the scale provides executive leadership and HR strategists with actionable analytics regarding aggregate leadership quality across departments, divisions, or hierarchical tiers.
• Leadership Climate Diagnostics: By shifting the referent from an individual supervisor to the collective leadership cadre (following Chan’s 1998 referent-shift consensus model), organizations can diagnose the general leadership climate of specific business units.

In empirical research, the GMPS enables organizational scholars to examine complex nomological networks involving managerial behaviors, team climate, psychological safety, employee well-being, innovation, and objective performance outcomes without inducing respondent fatigue.

Psychological Construct

The GMPS operationalizes the overarching psychological construct of managerial leadership behavior, conceptualized not as stable personality traits or abstract leadership styles, but as observable, learnable behavioral practices executed by individuals in formal managerial roles. Grounded in Yukl’s (2012) framework, the construct is divided into four distinct meta-categories, each representing a functional imperative for organizational and team effectiveness:

1. Task-Orientation (Aufgabenorientierung)

Task-oriented leadership focuses on achieving operational efficiency, process reliability, resource optimization, and adherence to performance standards. Rather than micromanagement, this construct reflects managerial behaviors that structure group work to ensure collective goal achievement. In the GMPS, task-orientation comprises four specific behavioral components:

• Clarifying Objectives: Ensuring all team members share a clear, coherent understanding of core targets and operational priorities (Item 1).
• Structuring Work Roles: Establishing shared clarity regarding responsibilities, procedural guidelines, and interdependencies (Item 2).
• Monitoring Progress: Utilizing clear, objective criteria to assess task execution and milestones systematically (Item 3).
• Operational Problem Solving: Intervening swiftly and decisively when operational disruptions, bottlenecks, or obstacles arise (Item 4).

2. Relation-Orientation (Beziehungsorientierung)

Relation-oriented leadership centers on fostering interpersonal trust, psychological well-being, mutual support, and human resource development within the team. This construct reflects the interpersonal dimension of leadership, emphasizing that sustainable high performance requires social support and relational capital. The GMPS captures four critical relation-oriented practices:

• Fostering Team Cohesion: Actively reinforcing interpersonal cooperation, mutual assistance, and psychological unity among team members (Item 5).
• Individual Consideration: Acknowledging and accommodating the personal needs, preferences, and individual circumstances of employees (Item 6).
• Appreciation and Recognition: Expressing genuine, authentic recognition and praise when difficult assignments or challenging projects are accomplished (Item 7).
• Targeted Subordinate Development: Proactively facilitating long-term professional development, competency building, and career growth for team members (Item 8).

3. Change-Orientation (Veränderungsorientierung)

Change-oriented leadership encompasses proactive behaviors designed to identify strategic opportunities, facilitate organizational adaptation, inspire collective vision, and drive innovation. Leaders high in change-orientation challenge existing operational assumptions and guide followers through environmental transitions. In the GMPS, change-orientation is measured through four behavioral indicators:

• Mobilizing for Change: Actively advocating for, initiating, and generating enthusiasm for strategic transformation (Item 9).
• Visionary Communication: Articulating an inspiring, tangible vision that clarifies the future developmental direction of the team (Item 10).
• Encouraging Innovation: Stimulating critical thinking by urging team members to question existing routines and develop creative alternatives (Item 11).
• Organizational Learning: Ensuring that critical mistakes and operational failures are systematically analyzed to extract constructive, forward-looking improvements (Item 12).

4. External Orientation (Externe Orientierung)

External orientation addresses boundary-spanning behaviors that connect the internal work group with its broader organizational and environmental ecosystem. While the prior three dimensions concentrate primarily on intra-team interactions, external orientation reflects the open-systems nature of organizational subunits. The GMPS assesses three vital external practices:

• External Stakeholder Cultivation: Identifying, engaging, and securing the support of influential external partners and stakeholders to assist the team (Item 13).
• Environmental Scanning: Monitoring external industry, organizational, and technological trends to detect emergent opportunities and prospective risks early (Item 14).
• Diplomatic Representation: Effectively and diplomatically representing the team’s interests to external parties without personal self-promotion or aggrandizement (Item 15).

Theoretical Framework

The GMPS is anchored in the theoretical leadership taxonomy developed by Gary Yukl (2008, 2012) and the broader paradigm of Flexible Leadership Theory (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). The conceptual evolution underlying the GMPS spans over six decades of leadership research in organizational psychology.

Historical Evolution of Behavioral Leadership Taxonomies

Early empirical investigations at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan during the 1950s and 1960s reduced managerial behavior to two broadly defined orthogonal factors: Initiating Structure (task-oriented behaviors) and Consideration (people-oriented behaviors). While these classic dimensions established that leadership behavior directly affects worker satisfaction and performance, subsequent meta-analyses revealed substantial unexplained variance in organizational adaptability, innovation, and external alignment.

Recognizing these conceptual limitations, leadership scholars in the late 20th century proposed additional categories. Yukl (1999, 2002) posited that change-oriented behaviors form an independent meta-category distinct from routine task execution or interpersonal consideration. Change behaviors are directed toward adaptation, innovation, and strategic renewal. In his definitive 2012 synthesis, Yukl expanded the framework to a four-meta-category taxonomy by formally integrating External Orientation (boundary-spanning behaviors), drawing on open-systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and team boundary management literature (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Under this formulation, leadership effectiveness requires managing both internal operational dynamics (task, relation, change) and external ecological relationships (stakeholder networking, environmental scanning, external advocacy).

Flexible Leadership Theory

A central theoretical premise of the GMPS is that no single leadership meta-category is universally superior. Instead, according to Yukl and Mahsud’s (2010) Flexible Leadership Theory, leadership effectiveness is contingent upon behavioral flexibility—the manager’s capacity to dynamically alternate between task, relation, change, and external behaviors based on shifting situational demands, environmental volatility, and follower needs. For example, during acute operational crises, task-oriented clarity and decisive problem-solving become paramount. During periods of organizational restructuring, change-oriented vision and relation-oriented empathy are critical to alleviate employee cynicism and anxiety. In complex matrix organizations, external boundary-spanning is essential to secure resources and political support. By measuring all four meta-categories independently, the GMPS enables researchers to model behavioral repertoires, behavioral balance, and situational adaptability.

Validity

Validation of the GMPS was conducted using a cross-sectional occupational sample of N = 328 employees in Germany. The psychometric evaluation established robust evidence across construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

To evaluate construct validity, the GMPS subscales were examined alongside established nomological indicators. Convergent construct validity was demonstrated through bivariate Pearson correlations with Identification with the Leader, operationalized via the validated indicator: “Wie sehr identifizieren Sie sich persönlich mit Ihrer Führungskraft?” (Hobman et al., 2011). Theoretically, subordinates identify more strongly with supervisors who act as supportive mentors, role models, and internal advocates. In line with hypotheses, all four GMPS subscales exhibited statistically significant positive correlations with leader identification:

• Task-Orientation: r = .29, p < .01
• Relation-Orientation: r = .44, p < .01
• Change-Orientation: r = .21, p < .01
• External Orientation: r = .16, p < .01

Discriminant validity is supported by the distinct magnitude of these correlations. Relation-orientation exhibited a significantly stronger association with subordinate personal identification than external orientation, reflecting the conceptual boundary between intimate interpersonal interaction within the team and external boundary-spanning activities.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity was evaluated against two foundational organizational criteria: Satisfaction with the Leader and Psychological Safety.

Satisfaction with the Leader: Subordinate satisfaction reflects an affective evaluation of supervisory competence and fairness (DeRue et al., 2011). Evaluated via single-item assessment (“Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihrer Führungskraft?”), all four GMPS dimensions demonstrated significant predictive validity, with relation-orientation emerging as the predominant affective driver:

• Relation-Orientation: r = .52, p < .01
• Task-Orientation: r = .34, p < .01
• Change-Orientation: r = .25, p < .01
• External Orientation: r = .14, p < .05

Psychological Safety: Grounded in Edmondson and Lei (2014) and measured via an adapted item from Fischer and Hüttermann (2020; “Gegenüber meiner Führungskraft kann man Fehler und Probleme offen ansprechen”), psychological safety captures a climate wherein interpersonal risk-taking is non-threatening. Managers cultivate psychological safety by treating errors as learning opportunities, considering individual differences, and providing task clarity. All four GMPS subscales correlated significantly with psychological safety:

• Relation-Orientation: r = .40, p < .01
• Task-Orientation: r = .36, p < .01
• Change-Orientation: r = .22, p < .01
• External Orientation: r = .14, p < .05

Face Validity

Cognitive pretesting (N = 3) verified that all 15 items exhibit high clarity, professional plausibility, and semantic coherence. Respondents confirmed that each behavioral description accurately reflects realistic managerial responsibilities in modern workplace contexts.

Reliability

The GMPS exhibits satisfactory to good internal consistency across its four subscales, satisfying accepted psychometric standards for multi-dimensional diagnostic instruments. Both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients were computed to account for congeneric measurement assumptions.

Internal Consistency Metrics

• Task-Orientation (4 items): Cronbach’s α = .70; McDonald’s ω = .71
• Relation-Orientation (4 items): Cronbach’s α = .81; McDonald’s ω = .82
• Change-Orientation (4 items): Cronbach’s α = .74; McDonald’s ω = .75
• External Orientation (3 items): Cronbach’s α = .70; McDonald’s ω = .71

Given the brevity of the subscales (3 to 4 items per dimension), these coefficients indicate robust internal consistency without excessive item redundancy. Relation-orientation demonstrates the strongest internal consistency (ω = .82), while task-orientation and external orientation meet conventional psychometric thresholds (≥ .70) appropriate for exploratory and applied research.

Item Discrimination and Corrected Item-Total Correlations

Following conventions established by Bortz and Döring (2006), item discrimination values (part-whole corrected item-total correlations, r_it-i) were evaluated against standard benchmarks (≥ .30 acceptable; ≥ .50 good):

• Task-Orientation: Item 1 (r_it = .52), Item 2 (r_it = .46), Item 3 (r_it = .52), Item 4 (r_it = .46).
• Relation-Orientation: Item 5 (r_it = .75), Item 6 (r_it = .59), Item 7 (r_it = .47), Item 8 (r_it = .70).
• Change-Orientation: Item 9 (r_it = .48), Item 10 (r_it = .51), Item 11 (r_it = .64), Item 12 (r_it = .53).
• External Orientation: Item 13 (r_it = .59), Item 14 (r_it = .56), Item 15 (r_it = .39).

Fourteen of the fifteen items demonstrate solid discrimination indices (≥ .46). Item 15 (“Angemessenes Vertreten des Teams nach Außen, ohne sich selbst in den Vordergrund zu drängen”) displays a moderate discrimination value (r_it = .39). This divergence is theoretically grounded: while Items 13 and 14 emphasize proactive task-focused external boundary-spanning (partner recruitment and market scanning), Item 15 emphasizes interpersonal humility and relational diplomacy when representing the team externally.

Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the GMPS was evaluated through a sequential two-stage psychometric process incorporating both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the first analytical phase, all 15 manifested items were subjected to an exploratory principal axis factor analysis with oblique Promax rotation (κ = 2) to permit inter-factor correlations among the behavioral dimensions. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed sampling adequacy. In accordance with the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0), four discrete factors were extracted, accounting for 60% of total variance. Item communalities ranged between .45 and .81, confirming that each item shares substantial common variance with its underlying latent construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In the second analytical phase, linear structural equation modeling (SEM) via maximum likelihood estimation was conducted on the covariance matrix using IBM SPSS Amos and JASP. Model fit was evaluated against established goodness-of-fit benchmarks (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003): Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .90 acceptable, > .95 good; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .08 acceptable, < .05 good; and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 acceptable.

The hypothesized four-dimensional measurement model demonstrated good global fit to the empirical data:

• χ² Statistic: χ² = 180.35, df = 84, p < .001 (χ²/df = 2.15)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .93
• Incremental Fit Index (IFI): .93
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .06 (90% CI [.048, .074])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .06

Standardized factor loadings (λ) across all latent constructs were substantial and statistically significant (p < .001), ranging from .48 to .84. The latent inter-factor correlations indicated moderate to high positive associations among the four behavioral domains, consistent with the theoretical framework of Flexible Leadership Theory, while remaining sufficiently distinct to verify multi-dimensionality.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS)
• Construct Assessed: Managerial leadership behavior across four meta-categories (Task, Relation, Change, External Orientation)
• Target Population: Direct reports, project team members, or managers (for self-assessment) across diverse organizational sectors, hierarchical levels, and industries
• Administration Mode: Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CSAQ; online web survey) or paper-pencil questionnaire
• Number of Items: 15 items
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 4 minutes
• Subscale Allocation:
  • Task-Orientation (Aufgabenorientierung): Items 1, 2, 3, 4 (4 items)
  • Relation-Orientation (Beziehungsorientierung): Items 5, 6, 7, 8 (4 items)
  • Change-Orientation (Veränderungsorientierung): Items 9, 10, 11, 12 (4 items)
  • External Orientation (Externe Orientierung): Items 13, 14, 15 (3 items)
• Response Scale: 5-point percentage rating scale:
  • (0) überhaupt nicht [not at all]
  • (25) sehr wenig [very little]
  • (50) zum Teil [partially]
  • (75) in hohem Maße [to a great extent]
  • (100) in sehr hohem Maße [to a very great extent]
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • All 15 items are positively keyed; no reverse coding is required.
  • Subscales should be computed independently as unweighted arithmetic means across their respective constituent items, yielding subscale index scores ranging from 0 to 100.
  • Handling of Missing Values: An individual subscale score should only be computed if valid responses are present for at least 50% of that subscale’s constituent items (i.e., at least 2 valid items for Task, Relation, and Change; at least 2 valid items for External).
  • Referent Shift for Leadership Climate: When assessing collective leadership climate rather than a specific individual manager (Chan, 1998), the referent instruction should be modified to: “Bitte geben Sie an, in welchem Umfang die Führungskräfte in Ihrem Arbeitsbereich die folgenden Verhaltensweisen zeigen:”

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The German Managerial Practice Survey (GMPS) was developed and validated between 2020 and 2021 and released for scientific and operational use. The instrument is open-access for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and scientific study, provided appropriate formal citation is given to the author.

For large-scale organizational applications, commercial enterprise use, integration into proprietary corporate 360-degree feedback platforms, or specialized consulting projects, practitioners should contact the developer directly to discuss implementation guidelines, benchmarking norms, and authorization:

Contact: Dr. Josef A. Fischer
Email: [email protected]

References

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393456

Borgmann, L., Rowold, J., & Bormann, K. C. (2016). Integrating leadership styles and managerial practices: A meta-analytic validation of Yukl’s hierarchical leadership taxonomy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815622723

Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33306-7

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

Fischer, J. A., & Hüttermann, H. (2020). PsySafety-Check: Ein diagnostisches Instrument zur Erfassung psychologischer Sicherheit in Arbeitsgruppen. Working Paper.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Peachey, A., & Rathert, C. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

Hassan, S., Prussia, G., Mahsud, R., & Yukl, G. (2018). How leader networking, external monitoring, and representing affect employee resources and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2017-0242

Hobman, E. V., Jackson, C. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2011). The effects of transformational leadership behaviours on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.004

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.

Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903065683

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.008

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)