08832323.2011.606243
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Managerial Caring Behaviors: Development and
Initial Validation of the Model
Carolyn Keeler & Michael Kroth
To cite this article: Carolyn Keeler & Michael Kroth (2012) Managerial Caring Behaviors:
Development and Initial Validation of the Model, Journal of Education for Business, 87:4,
223-229, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
Published online: 29 Mar 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:01
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 223–229, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
Managerial Caring Behaviors: Development and
Initial Validation of the Model
Carolyn Keeler
Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
Michael Kroth
University of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, USA
The purpose of this exploratory study was to develop a measure of managerial caring. A review
of the caring literature from nursing, education, and management formed the theoretical
framework for the study. The Measure of Managerial Carator Behaviors (MMCB) survey
instrument was developed from an initial conceptual framework based upon a review of
literature and existing instruments which measure caring. The resulting Likert-type instrument
to measure managerial caring behaviors was field-tested using a sample (N = 233) of managers.
The MMCB was validated through a factor analysis procedure.
Keywords: caring, carator, leadership, manager, managerial
There are at least two reasons why a model and an instrument concerning managerial caring are relevant for business
educators. The first is that caring may improve teaching outcomes, and hence be a competency worth developing for
pedagogical reasons. The second is that caring may help
leaders produce better business outcomes, and hence be a
competency that leadership courses might put forward.
Most individuals know from personal experience a teacher
who has affected their lives because they felt he or she cared
about them or was passionate enough about the topic that they
too became intensely interested in it. It is known, anecdotally,
that a teacher who cares is going to be more effective in at
least some ways than a teacher who does not, yet caring
does not appear to be a topic researchers are considering.
Most people have experienced a caring faculty member yet
one is hard pressed to find an article on caring in a business
education journal (Hawk & Lyons, 2008).
Hawk and Lyons (2008) looked at faculty pedagogical caring in an evening master of business administration (MBA)
program. They found a paucity of published business and
management journal articles on the ethic of care. Hawk and
Lyons collected responses from graduate-level students from
summer 2000 through fall 2002, a total of six semesters.
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael Kroth, University of
Idaho, Department of Adult/Organizational Learning and Leadership, 322
E. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702, USA. E-mail: mkroth@uidaho.edu
During that period of time 44% of the students had a least
one instance when they felt the instructor had given up on
them and their learning in a course. The consequences of
feeling given up on, Hawk and Lyons found, ranged from
doing nothing, to complaining to an advisor, chair, or dean.
Alternatively, student responses were also categorized
into ways that a teacher or instructor can communicate that he
or she had not given up on a student. Those categories were
the following: (a) instructor preparation and enthusiasm, (b)
establishing a safe and encouraging environment, (c) recognizing student learning differences, (d) involving students
and checking for comprehension, (e) providing constructive developmental feedback, and (f) instructor availability.
Hawk and Lyons (2008) found that having a pedagogy of caring is a valuable attribute for business education instructors.
“Demonstrating and modeling an ethic of care, pedagogical
caring, and pedagogical respect,” they say, “are the appropriate actions for an instructor. Caring helps us to reach all of
our students” (p. 333).
Are students in business classes giving up or producing
less because they feel faculty have given up on them? Do they
feel their instructors do not care about them? Most faculty
and students know how important having a caring faculty
member is but very little research or writing has been published about it. Developing a deeper understanding of caring
might help faculty to become better, more engaged and engaging instructors, and also to improve learning outcomes
for students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
224
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
We have previously discussed that caring behaviors may
also be important for managers, as described next (Kroth &
Keeler, 2009). Employees appear to be an increasingly important part of competitive advantage (Pfeffer, 1994), and the
benefit of positive work environments is receiving increased
attention from scholarly and popular perspectives (Ballou,
Godwin, & Shortridge, 2003; Boyle, 2006; Edmans, 2007;
Fulmer, Gerhant, & Scott, 2003; May, Lau, & Johnson, 1999;
Pfeffer, 2010a). Research has shown that employees leave
organizations because of poor managers (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999). Intuitively, it makes sense that if employees
believe their managers care about them, then organizational
benefits will result.
At the same time Fortune and Working Mother are publishing lists of the best places for employees to work, employees
continue to perceive their bosses to be abusive and their work
environments as negative (Ehrenreich, 2001; Fortune, 2011;
Leonard, 2007; Levering et al., 2006). Flexible schedules and
onsite daycare facilities are examples of strategies some employers are figuring may attract talented workers. Employees
who are in demand are apt to flow to the best employee value
proposition in a free agent talent market (Chambers, Foulton, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998). Further,
workers increasingly will be less likely to be collocated, and
managers will depend less on visual influence and more on
less direct methods to build and sustain motivation (Clemons
& Kroth, 2010). Recent literature has also focused on what
sustainability means for employees in organizations, beyond
just the physical environment which suggests the importance
of a healthy, mutually supportive, organizational ecology
(Pfeffer, 2010a). Developing a deeper understanding of managerial caring would provide human resource development
(HRD) and management scholars, faculty, and practitioners
insight into the process and practice of developing caring
behaviors in managers.
Research about caring has been significant in at least two
disciplines, nursing and education. It has received less attention in management literature (Hawk & Lyons, 2008; Kroth
& Keeler, 2009), though research about perceived organizational support (POS) has been studied extensively. POS is defined as “global beliefs [that employees develop] concerning
the extent to which the organization values their contributions
and cares about their well being” (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002, p. 698). It results from what employees perceive the
organization is doing voluntarily to support employees.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this exploratory study was to develop a measure of managerial caring. A review of the caring literature
from nursing, education, and management formed the theoretical framework for the study (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Researchers have developed and validated caring scales in nursing (Watson, 2002), social work (Ellis, Ellett, & DeWeaver,
2007), and organizations (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).
To begin to develop a better understanding of managerial caring we developed the Measure of Managerial Carator
Behaviors survey instrument (MMCB) using a Likert-type
scale. We then field tested the instrument using a sample (N
= 233) of managers from public and private sectors. Our
intent was to develop an instrument that could be used to
measure managerial caring behaviors in organizational settings. We were guided by two research questions:
Research Question 1: Can a valid measure of managerial
caring be developed from the dimensions identified in
the education, nursing, and organizational literature?
Research Question 2: Does field-testing and analysis of the
measure of managerial caring instrument confirm or suggest adaptations to the manager behaviors within the
Recursive Model of Managerial Caring (RMMC)?
THE RECURSIVE MODEL OF
MANAGERIAL–EMPLOYEE CARING
The RMMC, originally proposed as a result of an integrative literature review, is intended to broaden the discourse
about caring as a managerial strategy by incorporating caring from three perspectives: nursing, education, and organizations (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Although we drew only upon
the Manager (Carator) Behaviors identified in the model for
development of the MMCB described herein, a brief description of the complete model, as we previously discussed (see
Kroth & Keeler, 2009) follows next. The MMCB was not
designed to measure the entire model but only managerial
caring behaviors.
The model, shown as Figure 1, suggests that caring is a
reciprocal process. Both the manager and the employee must
be active agents in order to enable the process. The manager
invites, advances, capacitizes, and connects with employees.
Employees respond in ways that reinforce the caring cycle
or that do not. Specifically, the employee may react to the
manager’s behaviors by rejecting, ignoring, acknowledging,
receiving, or accepting them, and also modifies his or her
work behavior as a result. These actions by the employee
then affect the manager’s actions, and the cycle continues.
This reciprocal process also suggests, as shown by the
caring circle in the middle of the model, that caring, exhibited
by caring behaviors (manager and employee) may expand or
contract over time based upon the other’s actions. The arrows
in the model reflect this recursive process. Managers act with
caring behaviors and employees then respond, which affects
managerial caring behavior, and the process then continues
either building or diminishing caring behaviors.
The environment also affects each person’s caring capacity (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). If the environment is
healthy then the players are more likely to be open to the
MANAGERIAL CARING BEHAVIORS
225
Organizational Environment
Acts
(Responds)
Manager (Carator) Behaviors
Employee (Cared for)
Behaviors
Invites employees–is receptive
and fully available to the
employee
Advances employees–has a
desire to help the employee
succeed
Responds to caring from
manager
Caring:
Relationship
Reciprocal
Grows/diminishes
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
Capacitizes employees–sees
individual potential and helps
employees grow/learn
•Rejects
•Ignores
•Acknowledges
•Receives
•Accepts
•Modifies workplace behavior
Effort, commitment,
retention, etc.
Connects with employees
Responds
(Acts)
FIGURE 1
Recursive Model of Managerial–Employee Caring (Kroth & Keeler, 2009).
development of a caring relationship. If the environment is
negative the opportunity is likely to be less so.
Inviting behaviors on the part of the manager suggest an
engaging, open atmosphere and that the leader is available
emotionally and cognitively to understand the employee’s interests. Advancing behaviors place the manager on the side
of the employee as an active agent on his or her behalf. Capacitizing behaviors are those actions the manager takes to
help the employee learn, grow, problem solve, and stay on
track. Finally, connecting behaviors are what the manager
does to develop mutuality of relationship with the employee.
The first three categories are more focused on what the manager does for the employee; this category represents the developing relationship of common interest between the two
parties.
The RMMC addresses important gaps in organizational
literature by proposing a process of caring, behaviors that
managers can practice to produce caring relationships, and
the part employees play within the process. The model suggests that employees are not passive agents, waiting to be
acted on, but have a viable role in the process. Further, although we believe a caring attitude is more important than
going through the motions of expected caring behaviors, we
propose behaviors that may be learned by the manager. Finally, the model suggests, building upon POS literature, that
managerial caring behaviors are antecedents to desired employee outcomes such as productivity, retention, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction.
In addition to nursing (Swanson, 1991) and educational
(Noddings, 2005) caring theory, and POS research (Eisenberger et al., 1986), the model was further influenced by social exchange and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Foa & Foa, 1974; Gerstener
& Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Social exchange theory suggests that resources such as love, status, money, and
information can be exchanged in any situation, which then
creates obligations between the players. LMX posits that relationships develop between leaders and followers, based on
exchanges between them, starting with stranger and progressing to mature partnership (Graen & Uhl-Bien). In this section
we have summarized the RMMC. Next, we describe the development of an instrument to measure managerial caring
behaviors.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MMCB SURVEY
INSTRUMENT
The fields of nursing, education, and management were examined for instruments on caring. As we have previously
discussed, briefly described here in terms of the development of the MMCB survey instrument, a review of the
literature on caring in nursing and education shows a significant empirical and theoretical base (Kroth & Keeler,
2009). Perhaps the most research and theory building concerning caring has been conducted in the field of nursing.
Although caring historically has been considered an integral part of nursing, systematic research and theory building
about nursing and caring began in the late 1970s, and theorizing began at least as early as the 1950s (Leininger, 1978;
Watson, 1985, 2002).
Numerous studies have been conducted and outcomes
of caring have been identified and summarized via a metaanalysis (Swanson, 1999). Swanson (1991) defined caring as
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
226
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
“a nurturing way of relating to a valued other toward whom
one feels a personal sense of commitment and responsibility” (p. 162). Her caring theory, comprising five categories
or processes—knowing, being with, doing for, enabling, and
maintaining belief—has been shown to have generalizability
and transferability across a range of settings (Swanson, 1999;
Watson, 2002).
Each of these has subdimensions. Knowing, to Swanson
(1991), is “striving to understand an event as it has meaning
in the life of another” (p. 163). Being with is “being
emotionally present to the other” (p. 163). Doing for is
“doing for the other what he or she would do for the self
if it were at all possible” (p. 164). Enabling is “facilitating
the other’s passage through life transitions and unfamiliar
events” (p. 164). Maintaining belief is “sustaining faith in
the other’s capacity to get through an event or transition and
face a future with meaning” (p. 165).
Nel Noddings’s (2005) work provides the foundation for
caring theory in education. Caring, she says, is the “bedrock
of all successful education” (p. 27). The complexity of caring is explicated in Noddings’ theory. Caring, to Noddings,
also depicted in our RMMC, is a relationship between the
caregiver and the cared for. Both parties must be contributors
to the relationship in order for it to be called caring. The
carer (the one who is giving care), Noddings said, exhibits
engrossment and motivational displacement. Engrossment is
“open, nonselective receptivity to the cared-for” (Noddings,
p. 15). Motivational displacement is the desire on the part of
the care giver to help the other. Displacement occurs as the
caregiver’s focus shifts from his or her plans to those of the
cared-for.
The Revised Human Caring Inventory (RHCI; Ellis et al.,
2007) is grounded in Noddings’ (2003, 2005) concept of
caring. It was originally adapted from the Human Caring Inventory (HCI) for Nurses (Moffett, 1993) and has been used
to study the retention and turnover of public child welfare
workers. The original measure had 33 items and four dimensions of the affective component of caring: receptivity,
responsivity, moral–ethical consciousness, and professional
commitment. The six empirically verified dimensions which
are retained from the latest study are receptivity, personal
responsibility–reward, commitment to clients, professional
commitment, personal attachment, and respect for clients
(Ellis et al.).
Research about perceived organizational support considers caring in the managerial literature. POS is defined as
“global beliefs [that employees develop] concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well being” (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002,
p. 698). It results from what employees perceive the organization is doing voluntarily to support employees. A metaanalysis of 70 empirical studies indicated that POS correlated
with outcomes such as performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (Hellman, Fuqua, & Worley, 2006;
Rhoades & Eisenberger).
METHOD
In this section we explain item development, procedures, and
participant selection. Studies that involve instrument development are important and infrequent. Considerable time was
allocated to item development using multiple sources. The
process will be described in the first part of this section.
Then the procedures used and participants in the study will
be explained.
Item Development
An inductive approach assisted in the development of appropriate items for the MMCB. A review of the literature
as described previously gave us a broad understanding of
the theoretical and empirical work that has been undertaken
to explain caring in organizational, nursing, and educational
settings. First, we developed a conceptual model, the Recursive Model of Managerial–Employee Caring from that
review (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Second, we began to develop
an instrument to measure managerial caring. The pool of
items examined initially was obtained from two instruments,
the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger
et al., 1986) and the RCHI (Ellis et al., 2007). In addition,
Swanson’s Caring Theory (1991, 1999) provided the initial framework around which items were organized and also
served as a source for additional items.
Developed as a 36-item self-report measure, the Survey
of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) has been used
in shorter versions, including those with 8 and 16 items.
Studies have even used as few as three items (Hellman et
al., 2006). The original 36 items were developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) “to test the globality of the employees’
beliefs concerning support by the organization” (p. 501).
Each statement was examined for its fit to the conceptual model. An example of an 8-item version included the
following:
My organization cares about my opinions.
My organization really cares about my well-being.
My organization strongly considers my goals and values.
Help is available from my organization when I have a
problem.
My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my
part.
If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me. (R)
My organization shows very little concern for me. (R)
My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor. (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997,
p. 815)
Swanson’s (1999) meta-analysis of caring in nursing provided another framework in the planning stage of working
on the instrument. She categorized behaviors from the studies she reviewed using her caring categories—maintaining
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
MANAGERIAL CARING BEHAVIORS
belief, knowing, being with, doing for, and enabling—and
utilizing subcategories. Items from the RHCI and the SPOS
were integrated into this framework and examined further in
terms of their relevance to the model.
All items were examined for a fit to the Manager (Carator)
Behaviors listed within the RMMC model. In addition, some
areas required that more items be developed and we undertook an iterative process, constantly comparing them to the
behaviors named in the research. A small group of middle
managers reviewed and discussed each item. The criteria set
for inclusion in this group included management experience,
availability, and familiarity with research in the management
field. All were from course enrollments in an adult education
doctoral program. Some changes in wording resulted that
made them personally relevant to managers.
Developed and revised items were then fit to the manager
behaviors in the model and through discussion, revision, and
elimination 63 items were retained for testing. Constructed as
a Likert-type survey, a 4-point scale was utilized, with values
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to
force choice selections to one side of the scale or the other. In
Likert-type scaled instruments, negatively worded items are
often used to test for responses that are not aligned with the
intent of the instrument. Completed surveys with all items
answered in the same direction are not considered a valid
reflection of the caring demonstrated by managers and would
be discarded. To increase validity, we designed the instrument
with 18 negatively worded items.
Procedures and Participants
A survey including the 63 items generated previously was constructed and administered electronically
through the use of Zoomerang online survey software
(http://www.zoomerang.com). Leaders in each organization
were contacted and participation was based on their agreement to give access through interorganizational networks
to manager’s emails, not receive results, and guarantee
anonymity. This allowed for participation to be voluntary
and anonymous for the managers.
Email lists were utilized by human resources and other
leaders who forwarded an invitation to participate and the
website for survey access to managers within the organization. The voluntary nature of participation and lack of incentives may have resulted in the number of participants
from each organization to vary: a low of one to a high of
123 responses per organization were received. Only those
responses from complete surveys were retained. The resulting 233 complete responses were obtained from managers
in financial, health, agricultural, city and state government,
high technology, catalog consumer products, employment
agency, and restaurant supply organizations. This large and
varied sample was necessary to increase the number of returns and, thereby, the statistical power of the test to find
significant factors.
227
RESULTS
Several psychometric analyses were used to identify the measurement items to retain and determine the validity of the four
factors hypothesized in the development stage. We also conducted a test to determine reliability. First, a printout of the
data from the 233 responses to the survey was scanned to
check for any respondent who scored all items in the same
direction, (i.e., all 3 or 4 or all 1 or 2). This initial validity
check found no such entries. A frequency count was used to
determine the ability of the respondents to discriminate their
beliefs in terms of the level of agreement with each statement. Of the 63 original items, all had good discriminatory
power in that none of them contained a response that had
been chosen by more than 75% of the respondents. Therefore, no items were eliminated from the pool for appearing
to be overly socially desirable.
The negatively worded items then were reverse scored
using Excel and a formula that replaced 4s with 1s and 3s
with 2s, and so on. This is necessary to prevent ambiguity
in that all high scores should reflect a high degree of agreement with the construct of caring being measured. Next a
total correlation was run on responses on all 63 items. The
overall reliability estimate was a Cronbach’s alpha of .947.
This is a strong correlation that promoted the next step. An
exploratory factor analysis was used to uncover the latent
structure or dimensions of the original items. This procedure
was used to reduce the large number of variables to a smaller
number of factors for modeling the construct managerial caring (McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert, & Larkin, 2005).
A principle component factor analysis was run using SAS
(Version 9.2, Cary, NC) to determine the construct validity
of the total instrument. An eigenvalue plot was constructed
and examined to determine the amount of variation in the
total sample accounted for by each factor. The scree plot flattened after the fifth factor suggesting that the first five factors
contributed significantly to the construct being measured,
managerial caring.
The general factor was held fixed and using the SAS varimax rotation procedure the other factors were rotated. Six
eigenvalues met the Kaiser criterion of being greater than
one. Because the Kaiser criterion suggested six factors and
the scree test suggested five, a six-factor analysis as well as
four- and five-factor analyses were run. This allowed each result to be examined as to the degree each met the criterion of
theoretical meaningfulness. We then searched each resulting
analysis for the solution that generated the most comprehensible factor structure. The purpose of this scrutiny of each
factor analysis was to find what was interpretable as well as
the best cognitive fit to the model. This comprehensibility
criterion was used to interpret the findings. It was evident
that the six-factor solution, indicated by the Kaiser criterion,
presented the most interpretable results.
Examination of the pattern matrix showed a fairly simple factor structure and close fit to the theoretical foundation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
228
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
and substantive meanings of the model. The fixed or central
factor is considered a general measure of managerial caring
and is therefore not analyzed for agreement to the model.
Cognitively, three of the five remaining factors were similar
to three of the four factors hypothesized from the literature. They also contained evidence of some fit to the five
factors originally proposed by Swanson (1991). Due to the
exploratory nature of this factor analysis and present statistical thinking (Garson, 2008; Raubenheimer, 2004), we used
the factor loading criteria of .4 or higher for the central factor
and .25 or higher for the other factors. Items that had loadings
>.40 were retained in the five factors defined; 11 items did
not load adequately into the general factor or the other five
factors meeting our criteria and were eliminated.
By examining the items in each factor hypothesized from
the literature, it was determined which ones were a good fit
to the theoretical construct indicated. Of the nine items that
contributed to the concept referred to previously as “invites,”
three items had poor cognitive fit. One item was dropped and
two items had loadings of almost equal value in two other
factors and were thus moved, one to capacitizes and one to
values. This left invites with six strong component loadings.
Due to the makeup of the items loading in this factor, we
renamed it “communicates.” The concept of advances had
seven items loading at the criterion value and all were a
good fit. The concept of capacitizes had five original items
and the repositioning of the item from invites, also with a
loading of more than .25, resulted in six items assigned. The
fourth concept hypothesized as connects, the least developed
in the literature, became two separate factors in the six-factor
model. One retained the cognitive meaning of connects and
the other we renamed “values”. The factor connects had five
items at the criterion value, meeting the criterion of three
high, interpretable loadings (Garson, 2008). Values had five
original items at the criterion and one additional item repositioned from invites, which resulted in six items, all above
the .25 loading criterion.
This process of examining the five rotated factors and
renaming all factors to better represent and detail the distinction among the factors resulted in an instrument of 52 items.
These results indicate that the original four-concept structure
of managerial caring is confirmed in part and expanded to
include a fifth concept of values, a positive outcome for
model testing. However, some items did not perform as well
as others. Twenty-one of the items that loaded only on the
general factor of managerial caring and did not contribute
significantly (>.25) to the individual factors are retained at
this time. They contributed significantly to the managerial
caring concept and need to be tested further to see if they
may contribute to one of the factors identified by this
analysis.
In summary, the selection of the highest factor loadings for
each of the five identified dimensions of managerial caring
resulted in the following instrument: General factor with 21
items, communicates with six, advances with seven, capacit-
izes with six, connects with five, and the additional dimension
of values with six items. The balance and number of items
attributed to each dimension is one indicator of a strong instrument. It is our intention to use the resulting measurement
instrument for further confirmatory analysis.
DISCUSSION
Limitations
The original sample included 233 managers from financial,
health, agricultural, city and state government, high technology, catalog consumer products, employment agency, and
restaurant supply organizations. A sample of over 300 was
suggested by Thompson (2004) and thus we fell short of this
goal. The resulting structure coefficients
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Managerial Caring Behaviors: Development and
Initial Validation of the Model
Carolyn Keeler & Michael Kroth
To cite this article: Carolyn Keeler & Michael Kroth (2012) Managerial Caring Behaviors:
Development and Initial Validation of the Model, Journal of Education for Business, 87:4,
223-229, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
Published online: 29 Mar 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:01
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 223–229, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.606243
Managerial Caring Behaviors: Development and
Initial Validation of the Model
Carolyn Keeler
Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
Michael Kroth
University of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, USA
The purpose of this exploratory study was to develop a measure of managerial caring. A review
of the caring literature from nursing, education, and management formed the theoretical
framework for the study. The Measure of Managerial Carator Behaviors (MMCB) survey
instrument was developed from an initial conceptual framework based upon a review of
literature and existing instruments which measure caring. The resulting Likert-type instrument
to measure managerial caring behaviors was field-tested using a sample (N = 233) of managers.
The MMCB was validated through a factor analysis procedure.
Keywords: caring, carator, leadership, manager, managerial
There are at least two reasons why a model and an instrument concerning managerial caring are relevant for business
educators. The first is that caring may improve teaching outcomes, and hence be a competency worth developing for
pedagogical reasons. The second is that caring may help
leaders produce better business outcomes, and hence be a
competency that leadership courses might put forward.
Most individuals know from personal experience a teacher
who has affected their lives because they felt he or she cared
about them or was passionate enough about the topic that they
too became intensely interested in it. It is known, anecdotally,
that a teacher who cares is going to be more effective in at
least some ways than a teacher who does not, yet caring
does not appear to be a topic researchers are considering.
Most people have experienced a caring faculty member yet
one is hard pressed to find an article on caring in a business
education journal (Hawk & Lyons, 2008).
Hawk and Lyons (2008) looked at faculty pedagogical caring in an evening master of business administration (MBA)
program. They found a paucity of published business and
management journal articles on the ethic of care. Hawk and
Lyons collected responses from graduate-level students from
summer 2000 through fall 2002, a total of six semesters.
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael Kroth, University of
Idaho, Department of Adult/Organizational Learning and Leadership, 322
E. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702, USA. E-mail: mkroth@uidaho.edu
During that period of time 44% of the students had a least
one instance when they felt the instructor had given up on
them and their learning in a course. The consequences of
feeling given up on, Hawk and Lyons found, ranged from
doing nothing, to complaining to an advisor, chair, or dean.
Alternatively, student responses were also categorized
into ways that a teacher or instructor can communicate that he
or she had not given up on a student. Those categories were
the following: (a) instructor preparation and enthusiasm, (b)
establishing a safe and encouraging environment, (c) recognizing student learning differences, (d) involving students
and checking for comprehension, (e) providing constructive developmental feedback, and (f) instructor availability.
Hawk and Lyons (2008) found that having a pedagogy of caring is a valuable attribute for business education instructors.
“Demonstrating and modeling an ethic of care, pedagogical
caring, and pedagogical respect,” they say, “are the appropriate actions for an instructor. Caring helps us to reach all of
our students” (p. 333).
Are students in business classes giving up or producing
less because they feel faculty have given up on them? Do they
feel their instructors do not care about them? Most faculty
and students know how important having a caring faculty
member is but very little research or writing has been published about it. Developing a deeper understanding of caring
might help faculty to become better, more engaged and engaging instructors, and also to improve learning outcomes
for students.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
224
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
We have previously discussed that caring behaviors may
also be important for managers, as described next (Kroth &
Keeler, 2009). Employees appear to be an increasingly important part of competitive advantage (Pfeffer, 1994), and the
benefit of positive work environments is receiving increased
attention from scholarly and popular perspectives (Ballou,
Godwin, & Shortridge, 2003; Boyle, 2006; Edmans, 2007;
Fulmer, Gerhant, & Scott, 2003; May, Lau, & Johnson, 1999;
Pfeffer, 2010a). Research has shown that employees leave
organizations because of poor managers (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999). Intuitively, it makes sense that if employees
believe their managers care about them, then organizational
benefits will result.
At the same time Fortune and Working Mother are publishing lists of the best places for employees to work, employees
continue to perceive their bosses to be abusive and their work
environments as negative (Ehrenreich, 2001; Fortune, 2011;
Leonard, 2007; Levering et al., 2006). Flexible schedules and
onsite daycare facilities are examples of strategies some employers are figuring may attract talented workers. Employees
who are in demand are apt to flow to the best employee value
proposition in a free agent talent market (Chambers, Foulton, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998). Further,
workers increasingly will be less likely to be collocated, and
managers will depend less on visual influence and more on
less direct methods to build and sustain motivation (Clemons
& Kroth, 2010). Recent literature has also focused on what
sustainability means for employees in organizations, beyond
just the physical environment which suggests the importance
of a healthy, mutually supportive, organizational ecology
(Pfeffer, 2010a). Developing a deeper understanding of managerial caring would provide human resource development
(HRD) and management scholars, faculty, and practitioners
insight into the process and practice of developing caring
behaviors in managers.
Research about caring has been significant in at least two
disciplines, nursing and education. It has received less attention in management literature (Hawk & Lyons, 2008; Kroth
& Keeler, 2009), though research about perceived organizational support (POS) has been studied extensively. POS is defined as “global beliefs [that employees develop] concerning
the extent to which the organization values their contributions
and cares about their well being” (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002, p. 698). It results from what employees perceive the
organization is doing voluntarily to support employees.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this exploratory study was to develop a measure of managerial caring. A review of the caring literature
from nursing, education, and management formed the theoretical framework for the study (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Researchers have developed and validated caring scales in nursing (Watson, 2002), social work (Ellis, Ellett, & DeWeaver,
2007), and organizations (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).
To begin to develop a better understanding of managerial caring we developed the Measure of Managerial Carator
Behaviors survey instrument (MMCB) using a Likert-type
scale. We then field tested the instrument using a sample (N
= 233) of managers from public and private sectors. Our
intent was to develop an instrument that could be used to
measure managerial caring behaviors in organizational settings. We were guided by two research questions:
Research Question 1: Can a valid measure of managerial
caring be developed from the dimensions identified in
the education, nursing, and organizational literature?
Research Question 2: Does field-testing and analysis of the
measure of managerial caring instrument confirm or suggest adaptations to the manager behaviors within the
Recursive Model of Managerial Caring (RMMC)?
THE RECURSIVE MODEL OF
MANAGERIAL–EMPLOYEE CARING
The RMMC, originally proposed as a result of an integrative literature review, is intended to broaden the discourse
about caring as a managerial strategy by incorporating caring from three perspectives: nursing, education, and organizations (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Although we drew only upon
the Manager (Carator) Behaviors identified in the model for
development of the MMCB described herein, a brief description of the complete model, as we previously discussed (see
Kroth & Keeler, 2009) follows next. The MMCB was not
designed to measure the entire model but only managerial
caring behaviors.
The model, shown as Figure 1, suggests that caring is a
reciprocal process. Both the manager and the employee must
be active agents in order to enable the process. The manager
invites, advances, capacitizes, and connects with employees.
Employees respond in ways that reinforce the caring cycle
or that do not. Specifically, the employee may react to the
manager’s behaviors by rejecting, ignoring, acknowledging,
receiving, or accepting them, and also modifies his or her
work behavior as a result. These actions by the employee
then affect the manager’s actions, and the cycle continues.
This reciprocal process also suggests, as shown by the
caring circle in the middle of the model, that caring, exhibited
by caring behaviors (manager and employee) may expand or
contract over time based upon the other’s actions. The arrows
in the model reflect this recursive process. Managers act with
caring behaviors and employees then respond, which affects
managerial caring behavior, and the process then continues
either building or diminishing caring behaviors.
The environment also affects each person’s caring capacity (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). If the environment is
healthy then the players are more likely to be open to the
MANAGERIAL CARING BEHAVIORS
225
Organizational Environment
Acts
(Responds)
Manager (Carator) Behaviors
Employee (Cared for)
Behaviors
Invites employees–is receptive
and fully available to the
employee
Advances employees–has a
desire to help the employee
succeed
Responds to caring from
manager
Caring:
Relationship
Reciprocal
Grows/diminishes
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
Capacitizes employees–sees
individual potential and helps
employees grow/learn
•Rejects
•Ignores
•Acknowledges
•Receives
•Accepts
•Modifies workplace behavior
Effort, commitment,
retention, etc.
Connects with employees
Responds
(Acts)
FIGURE 1
Recursive Model of Managerial–Employee Caring (Kroth & Keeler, 2009).
development of a caring relationship. If the environment is
negative the opportunity is likely to be less so.
Inviting behaviors on the part of the manager suggest an
engaging, open atmosphere and that the leader is available
emotionally and cognitively to understand the employee’s interests. Advancing behaviors place the manager on the side
of the employee as an active agent on his or her behalf. Capacitizing behaviors are those actions the manager takes to
help the employee learn, grow, problem solve, and stay on
track. Finally, connecting behaviors are what the manager
does to develop mutuality of relationship with the employee.
The first three categories are more focused on what the manager does for the employee; this category represents the developing relationship of common interest between the two
parties.
The RMMC addresses important gaps in organizational
literature by proposing a process of caring, behaviors that
managers can practice to produce caring relationships, and
the part employees play within the process. The model suggests that employees are not passive agents, waiting to be
acted on, but have a viable role in the process. Further, although we believe a caring attitude is more important than
going through the motions of expected caring behaviors, we
propose behaviors that may be learned by the manager. Finally, the model suggests, building upon POS literature, that
managerial caring behaviors are antecedents to desired employee outcomes such as productivity, retention, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction.
In addition to nursing (Swanson, 1991) and educational
(Noddings, 2005) caring theory, and POS research (Eisenberger et al., 1986), the model was further influenced by social exchange and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Foa & Foa, 1974; Gerstener
& Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Social exchange theory suggests that resources such as love, status, money, and
information can be exchanged in any situation, which then
creates obligations between the players. LMX posits that relationships develop between leaders and followers, based on
exchanges between them, starting with stranger and progressing to mature partnership (Graen & Uhl-Bien). In this section
we have summarized the RMMC. Next, we describe the development of an instrument to measure managerial caring
behaviors.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MMCB SURVEY
INSTRUMENT
The fields of nursing, education, and management were examined for instruments on caring. As we have previously
discussed, briefly described here in terms of the development of the MMCB survey instrument, a review of the
literature on caring in nursing and education shows a significant empirical and theoretical base (Kroth & Keeler,
2009). Perhaps the most research and theory building concerning caring has been conducted in the field of nursing.
Although caring historically has been considered an integral part of nursing, systematic research and theory building
about nursing and caring began in the late 1970s, and theorizing began at least as early as the 1950s (Leininger, 1978;
Watson, 1985, 2002).
Numerous studies have been conducted and outcomes
of caring have been identified and summarized via a metaanalysis (Swanson, 1999). Swanson (1991) defined caring as
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
226
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
“a nurturing way of relating to a valued other toward whom
one feels a personal sense of commitment and responsibility” (p. 162). Her caring theory, comprising five categories
or processes—knowing, being with, doing for, enabling, and
maintaining belief—has been shown to have generalizability
and transferability across a range of settings (Swanson, 1999;
Watson, 2002).
Each of these has subdimensions. Knowing, to Swanson
(1991), is “striving to understand an event as it has meaning
in the life of another” (p. 163). Being with is “being
emotionally present to the other” (p. 163). Doing for is
“doing for the other what he or she would do for the self
if it were at all possible” (p. 164). Enabling is “facilitating
the other’s passage through life transitions and unfamiliar
events” (p. 164). Maintaining belief is “sustaining faith in
the other’s capacity to get through an event or transition and
face a future with meaning” (p. 165).
Nel Noddings’s (2005) work provides the foundation for
caring theory in education. Caring, she says, is the “bedrock
of all successful education” (p. 27). The complexity of caring is explicated in Noddings’ theory. Caring, to Noddings,
also depicted in our RMMC, is a relationship between the
caregiver and the cared for. Both parties must be contributors
to the relationship in order for it to be called caring. The
carer (the one who is giving care), Noddings said, exhibits
engrossment and motivational displacement. Engrossment is
“open, nonselective receptivity to the cared-for” (Noddings,
p. 15). Motivational displacement is the desire on the part of
the care giver to help the other. Displacement occurs as the
caregiver’s focus shifts from his or her plans to those of the
cared-for.
The Revised Human Caring Inventory (RHCI; Ellis et al.,
2007) is grounded in Noddings’ (2003, 2005) concept of
caring. It was originally adapted from the Human Caring Inventory (HCI) for Nurses (Moffett, 1993) and has been used
to study the retention and turnover of public child welfare
workers. The original measure had 33 items and four dimensions of the affective component of caring: receptivity,
responsivity, moral–ethical consciousness, and professional
commitment. The six empirically verified dimensions which
are retained from the latest study are receptivity, personal
responsibility–reward, commitment to clients, professional
commitment, personal attachment, and respect for clients
(Ellis et al.).
Research about perceived organizational support considers caring in the managerial literature. POS is defined as
“global beliefs [that employees develop] concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well being” (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002,
p. 698). It results from what employees perceive the organization is doing voluntarily to support employees. A metaanalysis of 70 empirical studies indicated that POS correlated
with outcomes such as performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (Hellman, Fuqua, & Worley, 2006;
Rhoades & Eisenberger).
METHOD
In this section we explain item development, procedures, and
participant selection. Studies that involve instrument development are important and infrequent. Considerable time was
allocated to item development using multiple sources. The
process will be described in the first part of this section.
Then the procedures used and participants in the study will
be explained.
Item Development
An inductive approach assisted in the development of appropriate items for the MMCB. A review of the literature
as described previously gave us a broad understanding of
the theoretical and empirical work that has been undertaken
to explain caring in organizational, nursing, and educational
settings. First, we developed a conceptual model, the Recursive Model of Managerial–Employee Caring from that
review (Kroth & Keeler, 2009). Second, we began to develop
an instrument to measure managerial caring. The pool of
items examined initially was obtained from two instruments,
the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger
et al., 1986) and the RCHI (Ellis et al., 2007). In addition,
Swanson’s Caring Theory (1991, 1999) provided the initial framework around which items were organized and also
served as a source for additional items.
Developed as a 36-item self-report measure, the Survey
of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) has been used
in shorter versions, including those with 8 and 16 items.
Studies have even used as few as three items (Hellman et
al., 2006). The original 36 items were developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) “to test the globality of the employees’
beliefs concerning support by the organization” (p. 501).
Each statement was examined for its fit to the conceptual model. An example of an 8-item version included the
following:
My organization cares about my opinions.
My organization really cares about my well-being.
My organization strongly considers my goals and values.
Help is available from my organization when I have a
problem.
My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my
part.
If given the opportunity, my organization would take advantage of me. (R)
My organization shows very little concern for me. (R)
My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor. (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997,
p. 815)
Swanson’s (1999) meta-analysis of caring in nursing provided another framework in the planning stage of working
on the instrument. She categorized behaviors from the studies she reviewed using her caring categories—maintaining
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
MANAGERIAL CARING BEHAVIORS
belief, knowing, being with, doing for, and enabling—and
utilizing subcategories. Items from the RHCI and the SPOS
were integrated into this framework and examined further in
terms of their relevance to the model.
All items were examined for a fit to the Manager (Carator)
Behaviors listed within the RMMC model. In addition, some
areas required that more items be developed and we undertook an iterative process, constantly comparing them to the
behaviors named in the research. A small group of middle
managers reviewed and discussed each item. The criteria set
for inclusion in this group included management experience,
availability, and familiarity with research in the management
field. All were from course enrollments in an adult education
doctoral program. Some changes in wording resulted that
made them personally relevant to managers.
Developed and revised items were then fit to the manager
behaviors in the model and through discussion, revision, and
elimination 63 items were retained for testing. Constructed as
a Likert-type survey, a 4-point scale was utilized, with values
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to
force choice selections to one side of the scale or the other. In
Likert-type scaled instruments, negatively worded items are
often used to test for responses that are not aligned with the
intent of the instrument. Completed surveys with all items
answered in the same direction are not considered a valid
reflection of the caring demonstrated by managers and would
be discarded. To increase validity, we designed the instrument
with 18 negatively worded items.
Procedures and Participants
A survey including the 63 items generated previously was constructed and administered electronically
through the use of Zoomerang online survey software
(http://www.zoomerang.com). Leaders in each organization
were contacted and participation was based on their agreement to give access through interorganizational networks
to manager’s emails, not receive results, and guarantee
anonymity. This allowed for participation to be voluntary
and anonymous for the managers.
Email lists were utilized by human resources and other
leaders who forwarded an invitation to participate and the
website for survey access to managers within the organization. The voluntary nature of participation and lack of incentives may have resulted in the number of participants
from each organization to vary: a low of one to a high of
123 responses per organization were received. Only those
responses from complete surveys were retained. The resulting 233 complete responses were obtained from managers
in financial, health, agricultural, city and state government,
high technology, catalog consumer products, employment
agency, and restaurant supply organizations. This large and
varied sample was necessary to increase the number of returns and, thereby, the statistical power of the test to find
significant factors.
227
RESULTS
Several psychometric analyses were used to identify the measurement items to retain and determine the validity of the four
factors hypothesized in the development stage. We also conducted a test to determine reliability. First, a printout of the
data from the 233 responses to the survey was scanned to
check for any respondent who scored all items in the same
direction, (i.e., all 3 or 4 or all 1 or 2). This initial validity
check found no such entries. A frequency count was used to
determine the ability of the respondents to discriminate their
beliefs in terms of the level of agreement with each statement. Of the 63 original items, all had good discriminatory
power in that none of them contained a response that had
been chosen by more than 75% of the respondents. Therefore, no items were eliminated from the pool for appearing
to be overly socially desirable.
The negatively worded items then were reverse scored
using Excel and a formula that replaced 4s with 1s and 3s
with 2s, and so on. This is necessary to prevent ambiguity
in that all high scores should reflect a high degree of agreement with the construct of caring being measured. Next a
total correlation was run on responses on all 63 items. The
overall reliability estimate was a Cronbach’s alpha of .947.
This is a strong correlation that promoted the next step. An
exploratory factor analysis was used to uncover the latent
structure or dimensions of the original items. This procedure
was used to reduce the large number of variables to a smaller
number of factors for modeling the construct managerial caring (McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert, & Larkin, 2005).
A principle component factor analysis was run using SAS
(Version 9.2, Cary, NC) to determine the construct validity
of the total instrument. An eigenvalue plot was constructed
and examined to determine the amount of variation in the
total sample accounted for by each factor. The scree plot flattened after the fifth factor suggesting that the first five factors
contributed significantly to the construct being measured,
managerial caring.
The general factor was held fixed and using the SAS varimax rotation procedure the other factors were rotated. Six
eigenvalues met the Kaiser criterion of being greater than
one. Because the Kaiser criterion suggested six factors and
the scree test suggested five, a six-factor analysis as well as
four- and five-factor analyses were run. This allowed each result to be examined as to the degree each met the criterion of
theoretical meaningfulness. We then searched each resulting
analysis for the solution that generated the most comprehensible factor structure. The purpose of this scrutiny of each
factor analysis was to find what was interpretable as well as
the best cognitive fit to the model. This comprehensibility
criterion was used to interpret the findings. It was evident
that the six-factor solution, indicated by the Kaiser criterion,
presented the most interpretable results.
Examination of the pattern matrix showed a fairly simple factor structure and close fit to the theoretical foundation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:01 11 January 2016
228
C. KEELER AND M. KROTH
and substantive meanings of the model. The fixed or central
factor is considered a general measure of managerial caring
and is therefore not analyzed for agreement to the model.
Cognitively, three of the five remaining factors were similar
to three of the four factors hypothesized from the literature. They also contained evidence of some fit to the five
factors originally proposed by Swanson (1991). Due to the
exploratory nature of this factor analysis and present statistical thinking (Garson, 2008; Raubenheimer, 2004), we used
the factor loading criteria of .4 or higher for the central factor
and .25 or higher for the other factors. Items that had loadings
>.40 were retained in the five factors defined; 11 items did
not load adequately into the general factor or the other five
factors meeting our criteria and were eliminated.
By examining the items in each factor hypothesized from
the literature, it was determined which ones were a good fit
to the theoretical construct indicated. Of the nine items that
contributed to the concept referred to previously as “invites,”
three items had poor cognitive fit. One item was dropped and
two items had loadings of almost equal value in two other
factors and were thus moved, one to capacitizes and one to
values. This left invites with six strong component loadings.
Due to the makeup of the items loading in this factor, we
renamed it “communicates.” The concept of advances had
seven items loading at the criterion value and all were a
good fit. The concept of capacitizes had five original items
and the repositioning of the item from invites, also with a
loading of more than .25, resulted in six items assigned. The
fourth concept hypothesized as connects, the least developed
in the literature, became two separate factors in the six-factor
model. One retained the cognitive meaning of connects and
the other we renamed “values”. The factor connects had five
items at the criterion value, meeting the criterion of three
high, interpretable loadings (Garson, 2008). Values had five
original items at the criterion and one additional item repositioned from invites, which resulted in six items, all above
the .25 loading criterion.
This process of examining the five rotated factors and
renaming all factors to better represent and detail the distinction among the factors resulted in an instrument of 52 items.
These results indicate that the original four-concept structure
of managerial caring is confirmed in part and expanded to
include a fifth concept of values, a positive outcome for
model testing. However, some items did not perform as well
as others. Twenty-one of the items that loaded only on the
general factor of managerial caring and did not contribute
significantly (>.25) to the individual factors are retained at
this time. They contributed significantly to the managerial
caring concept and need to be tested further to see if they
may contribute to one of the factors identified by this
analysis.
In summary, the selection of the highest factor loadings for
each of the five identified dimensions of managerial caring
resulted in the following instrument: General factor with 21
items, communicates with six, advances with seven, capacit-
izes with six, connects with five, and the additional dimension
of values with six items. The balance and number of items
attributed to each dimension is one indicator of a strong instrument. It is our intention to use the resulting measurement
instrument for further confirmatory analysis.
DISCUSSION
Limitations
The original sample included 233 managers from financial,
health, agricultural, city and state government, high technology, catalog consumer products, employment agency, and
restaurant supply organizations. A sample of over 300 was
suggested by Thompson (2004) and thus we fell short of this
goal. The resulting structure coefficients