Quality of communication between managers and employees questionnaire

Abstract

The Quality of Communication between Managers and Employees Questionnaire (known in German as the Fragebogen zur Kommunikationsqualität zwischen Führungskräften und MitarbeiterInnen, abbreviated as FKQ-MA) is an eight-item psychometric assessment instrument developed to evaluate how subordinate employees perceive the quality of interpersonal communication exchanged within the dyadic supervisor-subordinate relationship. Constructed by psychometricians and work psychologists at the University of Leipzig within a research program sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the questionnaire addresses a critical measurement gap in organizational psychology: the need for an economical, behaviorally anchored, and descriptive measure of bidirectional workplace communication. Grounded conceptually in Winfried Hacker’s Action Regulation Theory (Handlungsregulationstheorie) and building upon the foundational communication frameworks of Sperka (1997) and Roberts and O’Reilly (1974), the FKQ-MA conceptualizes communicative exchange not merely as top-down informational transmission, but as an interactive regulation system. Specifically, six items assess supervisory downward transmission (e.g., thorough information dissemination, constructive feedback, clear operational instructions, communicative summarization, and cognitive simplification of complex tasks), while two items assess supervisory receptivity to upward communication (e.g., allowing subordinates to articulate concerns directly and speak without interruption).

The scale utilizes a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (trifft gar nicht zu / does not apply at all) to 5 (trifft völlig zu / applies completely). Psychometric evaluation based on an occupational validation sample of N = 202 banking and insurance professionals revealed robust psychometric properties. Maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis and scree test criteria confirmed an essentially unidimensional latent structure accounting for 49.8% of the common variance, with standardized factor loadings ranging from .51 to .75. The instrument demonstrates high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .88) and corrected item-total correlations between .46 and .69. Extensive criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity analyses established substantial positive associations with transformational leadership (r = .69), Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) (r = .68), leadership relationship quality (r = .72), and supervisor social support (r = .49), as well as theoretically expected negative associations with workplace social stressors (r = -.31) and resignative job satisfaction (r = -.15). Because of its brevity, strict non-evaluative phrasing, and omission of reverse-coded items, the FKQ-MA serves as an exceptionally reliable diagnostic instrument for workplace organizational audits, leadership developmental interventions, and organizational communication research.

Keywords

FKQ-MA, communication quality, supervisor-subordinate communication, leadership behavior, Action Regulation Theory, Leader-Member Exchange, organizational communication, psychometrics, workplace feedback, upward communication

Authors

The Quality of Communication between Managers and Employees Questionnaire (FKQ-MA) was developed by a team of organizational psychologists at the Institute for Applied Psychology (Institut für Angewandte Psychologie) at Leipzig University (Universität Leipzig), Germany, as part of an extensive empirical research initiative funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) titled Führungsverhalten im Kontext der Geschlechterbeziehung (“Leadership Behavior in the Context of Gender Relations”).

• Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr — Principal Investigator, Emeritus Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Wilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. Contact: [email protected]. Prof. Mohr is internationally recognized for her extensive scholarship in occupational health psychology, work-related mental health, job insecurity, leadership dynamics, and the operationalization of leadership behavior in organizational settings.
• Dipl.-Psych. Anna Christina Günster — Co-Investigator and Psychometrician, Institute for Applied Psychology, Leipzig University; subsequently affiliated with the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR). Contact: [email protected]. Dipl.-Psych. Günster specialized in questionnaire development, behavioral interaction analysis, and dyadic workplace communication.
• Collaborating Research Group Members: The broader research program and associated validation initiatives included significant theoretical and psychometric contributions from Dr. Hans-Joachim Wolfram, Prof. Dr. Birgit Schyns, and Prof. Dr. Karsten Paul, who co-developed complementary assessment tools such as the Verbal Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (Verbales Führungsverhalten – Mitarbeiterbefragung, VFV-MA) and the Leadership Relationship Quality Questionnaire (Führungsbeziehungsqualität, FBQ-MA).

Purpose

The primary objective of the FKQ-MA is the objective, descriptive operationalization of communication quality within hierarchical organizational dyads from the perceptual perspective of the non-managerial subordinate. Within contemporary work environments, supervisory communication is widely recognized as the primary mechanism through which managerial functions are executed. However, existing survey instruments frequently conflate descriptive communication practices with affective satisfaction, general leadership charisma, or affective evaluations of the supervisor. The FKQ-MA was specifically engineered to overcome these methodological limitations by providing an economical, eight-item diagnostic inventory that evaluates tangible verbal behaviors rather than broad subjective attitudes.

Diagnostic and Research Applications

In applied organizational development and industrial-organizational psychology research, the FKQ-MA fills several vital diagnostic and empirical functions:

• Subordinate-Level Diagnostic Feedback: The tool allows organizations to benchmark the communicative competence of frontline and mid-level managers. By aggregating employee perceptions, human resource departments and executive coaches can identify specific communicative deficits—such as insufficient feedback, over-abbreviated explanations, or an unwillingness to let team members finish speaking—and target them through tailored coaching interventions.
• Leadership Training Evaluation: In organizational interventions designed to cultivate interactive leadership, the FKQ-MA serves as an ideal pre- and post-intervention evaluation metric. Its high sensitivity to behavioral nuance enables practitioners to measure whether leadership development programs translate into observable communicative adjustments in daily work routines.
• Organizational Stress Audits: Communication ambiguity, non-supportive communication, and communicative blockage have been documented as substantial organizational stressors. Administering the FKQ-MA during occupational health audits allows organizations to ascertain whether communication breakdowns are serving as upstream drivers of occupational strain, burnout, or resignative psychological states.
• Hypothesis Testing in Organizational Communication Models: In academic research, the FKQ-MA provides a validated, psychometrically sound instrument to model the mediating role of communication quality between formal leadership styles (e.g., transactional, transformational, or servant leadership) and organizational outcomes (e.g., affective organizational commitment, team performance, workplace innovation, and employee retention).

Theoretical Rationale and Methodological Advantages

The theoretical rationale behind the FKQ-MA is anchored in the necessity of operationalizing communication as a concrete action-regulating tool. Prior to its publication, researchers relying on German-language instruments were largely restricted to translating older Anglo-American measures, such as the Organizational Communication Questionnaire (OCQ) by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974), or using the German adaptation by Sperka (1997). The Sperka scale, while pioneering, spans 13 items and incorporates negatively keyed statements. Methodological literature in psychometrics has repeatedly demonstrated that negatively worded items introduce artifactual method factors, impair factor structural purity, increase cognitive burden, and trigger misinterpretations among survey respondents.

The authors of the FKQ-MA addressed these deficiencies by deliberately restricting the scale to eight entirely positively worded, descriptive statements. Furthermore, unlike mass communication models that treat communicative processes as unidirectional transmissions, the FKQ-MA captures the bidirectional, interactive essence of interpersonal workplace dialogue. By assessing both how supervisors transmit organizational objectives and how they receive employee concerns, the questionnaire provides a comprehensive yet exceptionally parsimonious assessment of the functional communication climate within the direct working relationship.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the FKQ-MA is perceived dyadic communication quality (wahrgenommene Kommunikationsqualität) between direct supervisors and their subordinates. Communication quality in this context is defined not as rhetorical elegance, public speaking eloquence, or persuasive marketing prowess, but as the operational effectiveness, clarity, psychological receptivity, and regulatory transparency of everyday verbal interactions between hierarchical partners.

Although the FKQ-MA exhibits an empirically unidimensional structure that justifies the calculation of a single overall composite score, the construct theoretically integrates two essential behavioral vectors of dyadic workplace interaction:

1. Downward Communication and Task Regulation (Supervisor → Employee)

The vast majority of daily supervisory interactions involve conveying task parameters, setting strategic objectives, coordinating complex workflows, and providing feedback regarding performance outcomes. In the FKQ-MA, this downward informational vector is captured across six operationalized facets (represented by Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7):

• Informational Completeness on Critical Matters (Item 1): Evaluates whether the manager thoroughly briefs the employee on essential matters rather than withholding critical context or relying on fragmented briefings. In complex work domains such as financial services, incomplete information directly impairs employee decision latitude.
• Precision of Evaluative Feedback (Item 2): Evaluates the degree to which supervisory feedback regarding job execution is exact, actionable, and specific. According to regulatory feedback models, vague praise or general criticism fails to provide the corrective informational cues needed to refine cognitive schemas.
• Explanatory Adequacy and Depth (Item 4): Assesses whether the manager presents information with sufficient contextual breadth, explicitly refraining from presenting complex tasks in an overly truncated or superficial manner („stellt nichts zu knapp dar“).
• Summarization of Semantic Content (Item 5): Captures the supervisor’s capacity to synthesize discussion threads, summarize key agreements, and consolidate the core meaning of meetings into structured conclusions. This reflects metacommunicative regulation, which prevents cognitive overload.
• Linguistic Clarity and Simplification of Complex Matters (Item 6): Examines whether the manager translates intricate, ambiguous, or conceptually difficult issues into intelligible, accessible language, facilitating shared mental models across hierarchy levels.
• Transparency of Behavioral Directives (Item 7): Measures the clarity, coherence, and unambiguous formulation of operational instructions, directly mitigating role ambiguity and task conflict.

2. Upward Communication and Supervisory Receptivity (Employee → Supervisor)

A distinctive conceptual strength of the FKQ-MA is its recognition that communication quality cannot exist without supervisory openness to upward input. A manager who issues flawless instructions but suppresses upward feedback stifles regulatory adaptation. This responsive, upward vector is operationalized via two critical items (Items 3 and 8):

• Communicative Directness and Low Expression Barrier (Item 3): Measures the employee’s subjective ease in raising concerns, expressing dissenting opinions, or communicating unexpected workplace difficulties directly to the manager without apprehension or psychological barrier („kann ich Dinge direkt loswerden“). This taps directly into foundational facets of psychological safety.
• Active Attentiveness and Conversational Respect (Item 8): Evaluates the physical and verbal willingness of the supervisor to let subordinates finish their thoughts completely without conversational interruption or pre-emptive dismissal („lässt MitarbeiterInnen ausreden“). Active listening and communicative turn-taking signal relational respect and structural fairness.

Theoretical Framework

The FKQ-MA is theoretically anchored in Action Regulation Theory (Handlungsregulationstheorie), formulated and popularized in work and organizational psychology by Winfried Hacker (1998, 2005) and further advanced by Frese and Zapf (1994). Action Regulation Theory posits that human work activity is purposeful, goal-directed behavior regulated by hierarchical cognitive architectures comprising sensorimotor, flexible action-pattern, and conscious intellectual levels.

The Functional Roles of Verbal Communication in Work Processes

According to Hacker (1998, p. 259), verbal communication in the labor process does not represent peripheral social discourse; rather, it is a primary psychological mechanism that regulates individual and collective activity. Hacker systematizes workplace verbal communication into four distinct functional imperatives:

1. Instruction and Information (Unterrichten oder Unterweisen): Verbal communication serves to transmit conceptual knowledge, operational procedures, organizational goals, and situational constraints. It builds the primary cognitive foundation upon which work tasks are conceptualized.
2. Work Planning (Planen der Arbeit): Language enables collaborative anticipation, goal setting, contingency planning, and the mental pre-structuring of sequential action phases prior to behavioral execution.
3. Coordination of Action Flows (Koordinieren des Arbeitsprozesses): In interpersonally interdependent tasks, dynamic verbal communication synchronizes multi-agent action sequences, realigns collective timing, and re-allocates task loads in response to unforeseen environmental variances.
4. Evaluation of Task Outcomes (Bewerten der Arbeitsergebnisse): Communication delivers evaluative feedback, contrasting actual outcomes against planned standard objectives (target/actual comparisons or Soll-Ist-Vergleiche), which enables systemic error correction and behavioral optimization.

Within this framework, managerial leadership is defined as the management of highly complex, long-term, multi-person action chains. As emphasized by Mohr (1999), organizational objectives cannot self-execute; they must be communicatively translated into proximal work goals. A manager must provide explicit guidance regarding implementation pathways, monitor interim milestones, and continuously provide verbal feedback to guide adjustments in action sequences. Consequently, managerial leadership inherently demands an exceptionally high volume of informational, coordination, and feedback-oriented verbal regulation. When communication breaks down, the subordinate’s internal action regulation is disrupted: goals become ambiguous, mental action models lose predictive validity, error rates increase, and cognitive strain escalates.

Integration with Dyadic Exchange Paradigms

Complementing Action Regulation Theory, the FKQ-MA integrates conceptual assumptions from relational leadership frameworks, notably Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX theory posits that leaders develop differentiated interpersonal exchange relationships with individual subordinates, ranging from low-quality transactional arrangements (out-group status) to high-quality partnerships characterized by mutual trust, reciprocal respect, and open interaction (in-group status). The FKQ-MA operationalizes the linguistic and behavioral substrate through which high-quality LMX is enacted in daily work life. High scores on the FKQ-MA reflect communicative environments where reciprocal information sharing flourishes, whereas low scores signify severe communicative bottlenecks that hinder both personal well-being and operational efficiency.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the FKQ-MA was conducted by Mohr and colleagues through a rigorous multi-stage developmental strategy, combining qualitative behavioral extraction with robust empirical hypothesis testing among a sample of N = 202 administrative and financial professionals from the banking and insurance sectors in eastern Germany (Halle/Leipzig region).

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established through an exhaustive two-phase behavioral extraction methodology rather than theoretical speculation alone:

• Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews: Industrial and organizational psychologists conducted structured interviews with 19 non-managerial employees at the lowest hierarchical tier in financial institutions. This generated a massive initial pool of 255 behavioral statements regarding supervisory interaction. Through systematic content-analytical categorization, statements reflecting communicative excellence and functional interaction were synthesized, ultimately yielding Items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
• Video-Based Interaction Analysis: To capture authentic communicative conduct, the research team videotaped 10 hours and 40 minutes of authentic, regular staff meetings across six organizational teams (comprising 5 to 17 members each, with three teams led by female managers and three by male managers). Qualitative micro-analysis of three hours of meeting interactions generated 251 descriptive statements of actual communication behaviors. From this pool, items characterizing high communicative efficacy were distilled, producing Items 5, 6, and 8. Item 7 was developed based on content considerations adapted from Sperka (1997).

This rigorous ecological derivation ensures that the final 8 items exhibit exceptional content and ecological validity, capturing behaviors that genuinely occur in authentic workplace communication.

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

To substantiate convergent and criterion-related validity, the FKQ-MA was correlated with established, validated measures of leadership quality, employee well-being, and social support. As hypothesized, communication quality demonstrated powerful, statistically significant correlations with closely related organizational constructs:

• Transformational Leadership: Measured via the German adaptation by Felfe and Goihl (2002), the FKQ-MA demonstrated a substantial correlation of r = .69 (p < .01). Effective communication serves as the primary behavioral medium through which transformational leaders articulate vision, provide individualized consideration, and intellectually stimulate followers.
• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Assessed using Paul and Schyns’s (2002) German LMX scale, the FKQ-MA correlated at r = .68 (p < .01), verifying that open, bidirectional communication is fundamental to high-quality leader-subordinate relationships.
• Leadership Relationship Quality (FBQ-MA): Evaluated using Wolfram and Mohr’s (2004) instrument, the correlation reached r = .72 (p < .01), providing compelling evidence that supervisory communication quality is the primary building block of the relational bond between supervisors and staff.
• Supervisory Social Support: Measured via Frese’s (1989) supervisory support inventory, the FKQ-MA demonstrated a strong positive association of r = .49 (p < .01), confirming that precise feedback and active listening are perceived by subordinates as direct social and emotional support.
• General Job Satisfaction: Using Baillod and Semmer’s (1994) multidimensional satisfaction scale, communication quality correlated positively at r = .21 (p < .01).
• Affective Organizational Commitment: Assessed via Schmidt, Hollmann, and Sodenkamp’s (1998) commitment scale, a statistically significant correlation of r = .15 (p < .05) was obtained, indicating that transparent managerial communication fosters psychological attachment to the organization.

Discriminant and Criterion Divergent Validity

Discriminant validity was established by examining constructs that should theoretically correlate negatively with high communication quality:

• Workplace Social Stressors: Evaluated using the validated social stressors scale developed by Frese and Zapf (1987), the FKQ-MA exhibited a significant negative correlation of r = -.31 (p < .01). Communicative transparency, clarity of instruction, and an open ear directly suppress organizational friction, interpersonal animosity, and social ambiguity.
• Resignative Job Satisfaction: According to the Bruggemann model of work satisfaction (operationalized by Baillod & Semmer, 1994), resignative satisfaction represents a defensive state where individuals lower their level of aspiration in response to chronic, unresolvable organizational deficiencies. The FKQ-MA correlated negatively at r = -.15 (p < .05) with resignative satisfaction, confirming that effective communication prevents psychological withdrawal and communicative resignation.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the FKQ-MA was rigorously evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha within the primary validation cohort (N = 202). The eight-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency, yielding an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .88. In applied psychometrics and organizational diagnostics, an alpha value exceeding .85 is widely regarded as optimal: it provides robust measurement precision for both group-level research and individual-level developmental diagnostics without indicating excessive item redundancy.

Item-Level Reliability and Discrimination Statistics

Item analyses demonstrated that all eight items display strong discriminatory power (corrected item-total correlations, r_it) and contribute harmoniously to the scale’s total variance:

• Item 1: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .67; α if item deleted = .83.
• Item 2: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .58; α if item deleted = .84.
• Item 3: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .63; α if item deleted = .83.
• Item 4: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .55; α if item deleted = .84.
• Item 5: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .64; α if item deleted = .83.
• Item 6: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .54; α if item deleted = .84.
• Item 7: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .69; α if item deleted = .83.
• Item 8: Corrected item-total correlation r_it = .46; α if item deleted = .85.

The corrected item-total correlations ranged from .46 to .69, significantly exceeding the conventional psychometric threshold of .30 or .40. Furthermore, step-wise inspection of the “α if item deleted” column reveals that the elimination of any single item fails to increase the overall internal consistency beyond α = .88 (values range between .83 and .85 upon deletion). This demonstrates that every item meaningfully contributes to the shared latent construct of communication quality.

Factor Analysis

To inspect the dimensional architecture of the FKQ-MA, the authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis utilizing the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method in SPSS on the data gathered from the N = 202 employees.

Dimensionality and Scree Test

The extraction yielded a dominant first factor with an eigenvalue clearly demarcating a single general dimension. The first extracted factor accounted for 49.8% of the total common item variance. An examination of the Cattell scree plot confirmed a sharp drop-off (elbow) immediately following the first factor. A hypothetical second factor explained only an additional 11.5% of variance, failing to demonstrate theoretical interpretability or psychometric utility. In accordance with standard psychometric conventions (e.g., scree test criteria, variance proportion, and parsimony), a clear unidimensional factor solution was retained.

Standardized Factor Loadings

During the developmental phase, an explicit a priori retention threshold was defined requiring factor loadings to exceed λ ≥ .50. Two experimental items generated from the broader pool of 506 items failed to meet these rigorous criteria (loading < .50 or item-total correlation < .40) and were eliminated from the final instrument. The standardized maximum likelihood factor loadings (λ) for the eight retained items are presented below:

• Item 1 (“Bei wichtigen Sachen informiert mich mein/e Vorgesetzte/r ausführlich”): λ = .73
• Item 2 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r gibt mir genaue Rückmeldungen zu meiner Arbeit”): λ = .65
• Item 3 (“Bei meiner/meinem Vorgesetzten kann ich Dinge direkt loswerden”): λ = .68
• Item 4 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r stellt nichts zu knapp dar”): λ = .60
• Item 5 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r fasst den Sinn des Besprochenen zusammen”): λ = .69
• Item 6 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r formuliert schwierige Sachverhalte verständlich”): λ = .60
• Item 7 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r gibt mir klare und verständliche Anweisungen”): λ = .75
• Item 8 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r lässt MitarbeiterInnen ausreden”): λ = .51

All eight items loaded strongly and positively onto the single latent factor, ranging from .51 to .75. The highest loading was observed for Item 7 (λ = .75), confirming that delivering clear, actionable instructions is the empirical centerpiece of subordinate-perceived communication quality. Item 8, capturing the non-verbal/behavioral restraint of allowing employees to speak without interruption, displayed the lowest yet fully acceptable loading (λ = .51), representing the receptive interpersonal boundary of the construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The FKQ-MA is structured as an economical, paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report questionnaire designed for administrative ease, rapid completion, and transparent scoring.

Structural and Administrative Characteristics

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / subordinate assessment of managerial communication behavior.
• Target Population: Non-managerial employees assessing their relationship with their immediate, direct supervisor (direkte/r Vorgesetzte/r) across diverse organizational industries.
• Total Item Count: 8 items.
• Estimated Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert rating scale, anchored with fully labeled verbal gradations:
  • 1 = trifft gar nicht zu (does not apply at all)
  • 2 = trifft wenig zu (applies slightly)
  • 3 = trifft mittelmäßig zu (applies moderately)
  • 4 = trifft überwiegend zu (applies mostly)
  • 5 = trifft völlig zu (applies completely)
• Item Polarity: 100% positively worded. There are no reverse-coded items, which minimizes cognitive confusion and response distortions.

Standard Scoring Protocol

• Sum Score Calculation: A total communication quality sum score is computed by adding the numeric values of all eight items: Total Sum Score = ∑(Item 1 to Item 8). Sum scores range from a minimum of 8 (indicating severe communicative dysfunction) to a maximum of 40 (reflecting optimal communication quality).
• Mean Scale Score (Scale Difficulty Index): To retain the intuitive metric of the 5-point response format and allow comparison across samples, a scale mean score is calculated by dividing the total sum by the number of items: Mean Score = Total Sum Score / 8. Mean scores range from 1.00 to 5.00.
• Interpretation of Trait Levels: Higher overall values signify a highly positive expression of communication quality, characterized by timely, detailed information sharing, transparent task feedback, clear guidance, and respectful active listening.

Sample Norms and Descriptive Statistics

The standardization data from the occupational sample (N = 202) provide descriptive benchmarks for interpretation:

• Overall Instrument Metrics: Overall scale Mean (M) = 3.96, Median = 4.00, Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.59, Skewness = -0.61, Kurtosis = 0.59.
• Item 1: M = 4.16, SD = 0.85, Skewness = 0.81
• Item 2: M = 3.57, SD = 0.93, Skewness = 0.23
• Item 3: M = 4.01, SD = 0.86, Skewness = 0.71
• Item 4: M = 3.74, SD = 0.87, Skewness = 0.30
• Item 5: M = 3.80, SD = 0.91, Skewness = 0.42
• Item 6: M = 3.97, SD = 0.79, Skewness = 0.85
• Item 7: M = 4.10, SD = 0.72, Skewness = 0.72
• Item 8: M = 4.31, SD = 0.74, Skewness = 1.15

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Quality of Communication between Managers and Employees Questionnaire (FKQ-MA) was developed and empirically validated between 2002 and 2004 under the auspices of the research project Führungsverhalten im Kontext der Geschlechterbeziehung, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) at Leipzig University. It was formally disseminated for academic research and organizational diagnostic applications in 2004.

Licensing and Fee Structure: The FKQ-MA is an open-access psychometric instrument published for academic, educational, and research use. There are no licensing fees, test-booklet purchase requirements, or royalty payments associated with its use in scholarly research or organizational field studies. Researchers and certified human resource consultants are permitted to use the scale items in paper-and-pencil questionnaires or secure digital survey platforms, provided appropriate academic attribution is given to the original authors (Mohr, Günster, Wolfram, Schyns, & Paul) and Leipzig University.

Commercial Consulting Usage: Commercial entities utilizing the instrument as part of revenue-generating organizational development packages, commercial leadership assessments, or consulting services should contact the corresponding primary investigator, Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr (Leipzig University, Institute of Psychology, [email protected]), to obtain permission.

References

• Baillod, J., & Semmer, N. (1994). Fluktuation und Berufsverläufe bei Computerfachleuten [Turnover and career paths of computer specialists]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 38(4), 152–163.
• Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche modifizierte Fassung des „Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire“ (MLQ) [German modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire]. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Version 6.0). Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
• Frese, M. (1989). Gütekriterien der Skalen zur Erfassung von sozialer Unterstützung am Arbeitsplatz [Psychometric criteria of scales measuring social support at work]. Universität München, Institut für Psychologie.
• Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1987). Eine Skala zur Erfassung von sozialen Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz [A scale assessing social stressors at work]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 41(3), 134–141.
• Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Hacker, W. (1998). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten [General work psychology: Mental regulation of work activities]. Verlag Hans Huber.
• Hacker, W. (2005). Arbeitspsychologie: Zur Handlungsregulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten [Work psychology: On the action regulation of work activities] (2nd ed.). Verlag Hans Huber.
• Mohr, G. (1999). Führung und Interaktion [Leadership and interaction]. In M. Frese & D. Zapf (Eds.), Handbuch der Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Hogrefe.
• Mohr, G., Schyns, B., Wolfram, H.-J., & Paul, K. (2004). Fragebogen zum Verbalen Führungsverhalten – Mitarbeiterversion (VFV-MA) [Verbal Leadership Behavior Questionnaire – Employee Version]. Universität Leipzig.
• Paul, K., & Schyns, B. (2002). Deutsche Version der Leader-Member-Exchange Skala (LMX) [German version of the Leader-Member Exchange scale]. Universität Leipzig.
• Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036660
• Schmidt, K.-H., Hollmann, S., & Sodenkamp, D. (1998). Psychometrische Überprüfung einer deutschsprachigen Fassung des Fragebogens zur Erfassung von organisationalem Commitment von Allen und Meyer (1990) [Psychometric evaluation of a German version of Allen and Meyer’s organizational commitment questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19(2), 93–106.
• Sperka, M. (1997). Kommunikation in Organisationen: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Erfassungsinstruments [Communication in organizations: Development and validation of an assessment instrument]. Peter Lang.
• Wolfram, H.-J., & Mohr, G. (2004). Fragebogen zur Führungsbeziehungsqualität – Mitarbeiterversion (FBQ-MA) [Leadership Relationship Quality Questionnaire – Employee Version]. Universität Leipzig.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)