{"id":8937,"date":"2026-09-30T06:12:40","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T06:12:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ashadocs.org\/scales\/leadership-relationship-quality-scale-employee-version\/"},"modified":"2026-09-30T06:12:40","modified_gmt":"2026-09-30T06:12:40","slug":"leadership-relationship-quality-scale-employee-version","status":"publish","type":"psych_scale","link":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/?psych_scale=leadership-relationship-quality-scale-employee-version","title":{"rendered":"Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Abstract<\/h2>\n<p>The <strong>Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version<\/strong> (LRQ-E; German: <em>Skala zur Erfassung der F\u00fchrungsbeziehungsqualit\u00e4t aus Mitarbeitersicht<\/em>) is a standardized psychometric instrument designed to assess the multifaceted quality of dyadic interpersonal relationships between employees and their immediate supervisors. Developed by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kingston.ac.uk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Hans-Joachim Wolfram<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uni-leipzig.de\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Gisela Mohr<\/a> at the University of Leipzig within a research program supported by the German Research Foundation (<em>Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft<\/em>, DFG), the LRQ-E addresses critical conceptual limitations in classical leader\u2013member exchange (<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_theory\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">LMX<\/a>) metrics. While conventional instruments (such as the LMX-7) predominantly conceptualize exchange quality as instrumental transactional support or global affinity, the LRQ-E systematically measures four theoretically grounded, behaviorally anchored dimensions: <span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>Respect<\/strong> (<em>Respekt<\/em>), <strong>Trust<\/strong> (<em>Vertrauen<\/em>), <strong>Encouragement<\/strong> (<em>Ermutigung<\/em>), and <strong>Affection<\/strong> (<em>Zuneigung<\/em>). The instrument comprises 16 items formulated to capture observable, everyday supervisory behaviors within organizational settings. Responses are captured along a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<em>trifft gar nicht zu<\/em> \/ does not apply at all) to 5 (<em>trifft v\u00f6llig zu<\/em> \/ completely applies). Maximum-likelihood factor analyses demonstrate a predominant primary factor accounting for 43.2% of the common variance, supporting the computation of a composite overall relationship quality score. The scale exhibits high internal consistency (<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cronbach%27s_alpha\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cronbach&#39;s alpha<\/a> = .91) and robust criterion-related and construct validity, correlating strongly with multidimensional LMX (<em>r<\/em> = .80), transformational leadership (<em>r<\/em> = .73), and supervisor social support (<em>r<\/em> = .72), while demonstrating expected relationships with employee job satisfaction, occupational self-efficacy, and affective organizational commitment<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h2>Keywords<\/h2>\n<p>Leadership Relationship Quality, Leader\u2013Member Exchange, LMX, Dyadic Leadership, Supervisory Trust, Mutual Respect, Employee Encouragement, Affective Attachment, Organizational Psychometrics, Workplace Social Support, Employee Attitudes, Psychometric Validation<\/p>\n<h2>Authors<\/h2>\n<p>The Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version was developed by:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Dipl.-Psych. Dr. Hans-Joachim Wolfram<\/strong>: Kingston Business School, Kingston University London, United Kingdom (formerly at the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Applied Psychology, Leipzig University, Germany). Primary research areas: dyadic leadership processes, gender dynamics in corporate leadership, and leader\u2013follower relational exchange. Contact: <a href=\"mailto:H.Wolfram@kingston.ac.uk\">H.Wolfram@kingston.ac.uk<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr<\/strong>: Emeritus Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Applied Psychology, Leipzig University (<em>Universit\u00e4t Leipzig<\/em>), Seeburgstra\u00dfe 14\u201320, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. Renowned for foundational contributions to occupational health psychology, job insecurity measurement, and organizational behavior. Contact: <a href=\"mailto:mohr@uni-leipzig.de\">mohr@uni-leipzig.de<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Purpose<\/h2>\n<p>The primary purpose of the Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically robust, and behaviorally concrete diagnostic tool for quantifying how subordinates evaluate the relational and psychosocial climate established by their direct line managers. Within industrial and organizational psychology, interpersonal workplace dynamics have long been recognized as decisive determinants of employee well-being, engagement, and organizational citizenship. However, many legacy instruments measuring leadership relationships suffer from abstract wording, confounding leadership styles with relationship outcomes, or neglecting fundamental socio-emotional currencies such as mutual trust, explicit appreciation, resilience-building encouragement, and positive affect.<\/p>\n<p>Wolfram and Mohr conceptualized the LRQ-E to overcome two predominant deficits observed in standard leadership metrics:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Item Abstraction vs. Behavioral Anchoring:<\/strong> Classical instruments such as the LMX-7 (Graen &amp; Uhl-Bien, 1995) contain generalized items asking respondents to evaluate theoretical constructs globally (e.g., &quot;How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?&quot;). Subordinates often find it difficult to anchor such questions in daily work routines. The LRQ-E deliberately employs everyday, observable behaviors (e.g., whether the supervisor praises the subordinate after completing difficult tasks, grants access to required IT systems, stands up for the subordinate against external parties, or shares humor).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neglect of Core Interpersonal Dimensions:<\/strong> Graen and Scandura (1987) posited that mutual respect, interpersonal trust, and psychological obligation are the three fundamental pillars of mature leadership dyads. Despite this theoretical consensus, traditional tools contain minimal explicit coverage of respect and trust. The LRQ-E was intentionally drafted to represent these constructs alongside encouragement during failure and authentic interpersonal affection.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The scale serves diverse applications across organizational and scientific domains:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Applied Organizational Diagnostics:<\/strong> The LRQ-E functions as an evaluation instrument in <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/360-degree_feedback\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">360-degree leadership feedback<\/a> processes, organizational climate surveys, and pulse assessments. It pinpoints whether relational deficits stem from lack of informational transparency (trust), absence of public recognition (respect), punitive responses to error (lack of encouragement), or interpersonal alienation (low affection).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Leadership Training and Executive Coaching:<\/strong> Because items reflect tangible actions, coaches can formulate targeted behavioral interventions. Rather than receiving an abstract score on &quot;relational competence,&quot; supervisors obtain actionable feedback on concrete behaviors, such as acknowledging suggestions in team meetings or shielding subordinates during external disputes.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Academic Research:<\/strong> The scale enables occupational researchers to investigate dyadic leadership as an antecedent, mediator, or moderator in stress-strain models, models of workplace burnout, creative voice behavior, organizational turnover intentions, and gender-dyad interaction effects.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n<p>The construct assessed by the LRQ-E is <strong>Perceived Leadership Relationship Quality<\/strong> (<em>F\u00fchrungsbeziehungsqualit\u00e4t<\/em>). Rather than assessing a unilateral leadership &quot;trait&quot; or rigid managerial &quot;style,&quot; the construct captures the quality of the socio-emotional and instrumental exchange existing within a unique vertical dyad. Although maximum-likelihood factor analytic investigations show that the scale possesses strong unidimensionality\u2014allowing the extraction of a single composite index of relationship quality\u2014the instrument is theoretically founded upon four interconnected dimensions:<\/p>\n<h3>1. Respect (<em>Respekt<\/em>)<\/h3>\n<p>The Respect dimension measures the extent to which the supervisor acknowledges the professional competence, personal dignity, and organizational value of the employee. Respect reflects psychological validation within the social hierarchy. When supervisors exhibit respect, they treat subordinates as capable, autonomous contributors whose perspectives warrant genuine consideration. Within the LRQ-E, this dimension is operationalized through behavioral indicators such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Explicitly highlighting the employee&#39;s organizational importance to the team or enterprise (Item 1).<\/li>\n<li>Expressing verbal recognition and praise following the mastery of demanding challenges (Item 2).<\/li>\n<li>Actively adopting and integrating the employee&#39;s proposed problem-solving suggestions (Item 3).<\/li>\n<li>Affirming and validating the employee&#39;s professional opinions during operational deliberations (Item 4).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>2. Trust (<em>Vertrauen<\/em>)<\/h3>\n<p>Trust in leadership dyads is defined as the willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of another, founded upon expectations of competence, reliability, benevolence, and integrity. In supervisory contexts, trust is manifested when leaders grant autonomy and empower subordinates rather than exercising micromanagement. Within the LRQ-E, trust is evaluated through concrete delegative and information-sharing behaviors:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Relying consistently on the accuracy and honesty of the employee&#39;s statements and reports (Item 5).<\/li>\n<li>Accepting and backing the independent decisions rendered by the employee (Item 6).<\/li>\n<li>Granting unrestricted access to critical information, internal computer systems, and enterprise databases without gatekeeping (Item 7).<\/li>\n<li>Entrusting the employee with complex, high-stakes assignments that require professional discretion (Item 8).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>3. Encouragement (<em>Ermutigung<\/em>)<\/h3>\n<p>The Encouragement dimension reflects supervisory behaviors that foster psychological safety, resilience, and personal development. High-quality leadership dyads do not merely reward success; they provide a developmental safety net during operational challenges or errors. Subordinates who perceive encouragement feel empowered to innovate, engage in calculated risk-taking, and persist in the face of setbacks. Operational expressions of this dimension include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Offering psychological reassurance and constructive cheerfulness after errors occur, rather than levying punitive blame (Item 9).<\/li>\n<li>Actively instilling courage and confidence when the employee initiates unfamiliar or ambitious tasks (Item 10).<\/li>\n<li>Collaborating supportively with the subordinate during the search for complex problem resolutions (Item 11).<\/li>\n<li>Providing steadfast advocacy and backing when the subordinate encounters challenges or scrutiny from external stakeholders or senior executives (Item 12).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>4. Affection (<em>Zuneigung<\/em>)<\/h3>\n<p>The Affection dimension assesses the interpersonal warmth, mutual liking, informal rapport, and emotional harmony that characterizes mature dyadic partnerships. While purely transactional leadership focuses strictly on contractual duties, high-quality exchange relationships invariably encompass authentic socio-emotional bonds. Subordinates who experience interpersonal affection feel recognized as distinct human beings rather than replaceable cogs. Within the LRQ-E, affection is captured by:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cultivating a warm, collegial, and mutually supportive social climate within the workgroup (Item 13).<\/li>\n<li>Experiencing mutual psychological alignment and informal understanding (&quot;being on the same wavelength&quot;; Item 14).<\/li>\n<li>Maintaining an intrinsically positive, harmonious overall interpersonal relationship (Item 15).<\/li>\n<li>Sharing spontaneous humor, laughter, and lighthearted moments during workday interactions (Item 16).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n<p>The Leadership Relationship Quality Scale is anchored primarily in <strong>Leader\u2013Member Exchange (LMX) Theory<\/strong>, originally formulated as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model by Dansereau, Cashman, and Graen (1973), and subsequently refined by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). Classical leadership paradigms assumed an &quot;average leadership style&quot; (ALS) where a leader behaves similarly toward all subordinates. Conversely, LMX theory postulates that leaders develop differentiated relationships with different followers through progressive iterations of role-making, social exchange, and mutual attribution.<\/p>\n<h3>The Social Exchange Mechanism<\/h3>\n<p>According to <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Social_exchange_theory\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Social Exchange Theory<\/a> (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano &amp; Mitchell, 2005), workplace interactions fall along a continuum ranging from purely transactional (economic) exchanges to rich, high-trust socio-emotional exchanges. In low-quality LMX dyads (&quot;out-group&quot; status), the relationship is governed strictly by the formal employment contract: the employee performs designated duties, and the supervisor delivers formal remuneration. In contrast, in high-quality LMX dyads (&quot;in-group&quot; status), the exchange transcends contractual parameters. The leader offers psychosocial resources\u2014such as autonomy, developmental encouragement, inside information, and social support\u2014while the subordinate reciprocates with enhanced discretionary effort, loyalty, and proactive voice behavior.<\/p>\n<h3>Graen and Scandura&#39;s Dyadic Currency Model<\/h3>\n<p>Graen and Scandura (1987) identified three fundamental exchange currencies that define mature dyadic partnerships: <em>competence\/respect<\/em>, <em>trust<\/em>, and <em>obligation<\/em>. Later conceptualizations expanded these currencies to include multidimensional facets such as affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect (Liden &amp; Maslyn, 1998). Wolfram and Mohr observed that existing operationalizations frequently failed to capture these currencies behaviorally in the German-speaking work environment. By integrating Mayring&#39;s (1983) qualitative content analysis of field interviews with front-line banking and insurance employees, the authors bridged conceptual LMX theory with inductive, grounded behavioral realities.<\/p>\n<h3>Conservation of Resources (COR) and Psychological Safety<\/h3>\n<p>The LRQ-E also integrates principles from Hobfoll&#39;s (1989) <em>Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory<\/em> and Edmondson&#39;s (1999) construct of <em>Psychological Safety<\/em>. In stressful corporate environments, supervisory trust, error-tolerant encouragement, and socio-emotional affection function as vital psychological resources. When leaders treat errors as learning opportunities (Item 9) and shield followers from external threat (Item 12), they reduce cognitive threat appraisals, diminish workplace strain, and foster proactive employee voice.<\/p>\n<h2>Validity<\/h2>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">Empirical validation of the LRQ-E was conducted on a sample of <em>N<\/em> = 202 employees across 19 corporate organizations in the banking and insurance sectors in Germany, nested within 49 work teams. The validation protocol established content, construct, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant validity<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h3>Content Validity<\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">To ensure high content validity, Wolfram and Mohr initiated scale development via structured qualitative interviews with 19 banking and insurance professionals. Employees described concrete, daily supervisor behaviors indicating respect, trust, encouragement, and affection. The resulting qualitative corpus yielded 251 verbatim statements. Using Mayring&#39;s (1983) qualitative structuring and reducing content analysis, academic organizational psychologists evaluated and distilled these statements down to 42 prototypical items. A quantitative pilot investigation (<em>N<\/em> = 70) further eliminated items with insufficient item-total correlations, skewness, or ceiling effects, yielding the final 16-item instrument<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h3>Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity<\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">Bivariate correlation analyses between the composite LRQ-E score and validated organizational benchmarks demonstrated robust convergent and criterion-related associations, conforming precisely to theoretical predictions (all correlations reported below are significant at <em>p<\/em> &lt; .01 unless noted)<\/span>:<\/p>\n<table style=\"width:100%; border-collapse:collapse; margin:20px 0;\">\n<thead>\n<tr style=\"background:#f1f5f9; text-align:left; border-bottom:2px solid #cbd5e1;\">\n<th style=\"padding:10px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Criterion Variable<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Validation Instrument Source<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">Correlation (<em>r<\/em>)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Leader\u2013Member Exchange (LMX)<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Liden &amp; Maslyn (1998; German by Paul &amp; Schyns, 2002)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.80**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Transformational Leadership<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Bass &amp; Avolio (1995; MLQ German by Felfe &amp; Goihl, 2002)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.73**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Supervisor Social Support<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Frese (1989)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.72**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Job Satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Baillod &amp; Semmer (1994)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.33**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Social Stressors in the Workplace<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Frese &amp; Zapf (1987)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">-.29**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Employee Voice Behavior<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Van Dyne &amp; LePine (1998; German by Pundt, 2002)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.21**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Occupational Self-Efficacy<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Schyns &amp; von Collani (2003)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.21**<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\"><strong>Affective Organizational Commitment<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Allen &amp; Meyer (1990; German by Schmidt et al., 1998)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.15*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><em>Note:<\/em> ** <em>p<\/em> &lt; .01; * <em>p<\/em> &lt; .05<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">The substantial correlation with Liden and Maslyn&#39;s multidimensional LMX scale (<em>r<\/em> = .80) validates the instrument as an authentic measure of leader\u2013member exchange. Strong positive correlations with Transformational Leadership (<em>r<\/em> = .73) and Supervisor Support (<em>r<\/em> = .72) confirm that relational quality is intimately linked to charismatic, developmental leadership styles and perceived managerial helpfulness. In terms of criterion-related utility, the LRQ-E positively predicted overall job satisfaction (<em>r<\/em> = .33), employee proactive voice behavior (<em>r<\/em> = .21), and occupational self-efficacy (<em>r<\/em> = .21), while exhibiting an inverse correlation with workplace social stressors (<em>r<\/em> = -.29). The modest correlation with affective commitment (<em>r<\/em> = .15) supports discriminant validity, illustrating that interpersonal relationship quality with a direct line manager remains distinct from broader emotional attachment to the macro-organization<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h2>Reliability<\/h2>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">The Leadership Relationship Quality Scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency. In the primary validation sample of 202 employees in the banking and insurance sectors, the 16-item scale achieved an overall <strong>Cronbach&#39;s alpha of &alpha; = .91<\/strong>. This high coefficient indicates strong homogeneity among the items, well exceeding the .80 benchmark recommended by psychometric standards for applied diagnostic tools<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Detailed item-level reliability and distribution metrics demonstrate consistent measurement precision across the instrument:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>Corrected Item-Total Correlations (<em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em>):<\/strong> Discriminatory power values ranged from .37 to .79. Thirteen of the 16 items exhibited corrected item-total correlations &ge; .50. The highest discrimination was observed for Item 14 (&quot;My supervisor is on my wavelength,&quot; <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .79), Item 10 (&quot;My supervisor encourages me to tackle new things,&quot; <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .72), Item 12 (&quot;My supervisor supports me against outsiders,&quot; <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .70), Item 15 (&quot;My supervisor has a good relationship with me,&quot; <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .69), and Item 11 (&quot;My supervisor helps me find problem solutions,&quot; <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .68). Lower discrimination was observed for items reflecting baseline structural procedures, such as Item 7 (granting IT system access, <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .37) and Item 5 (relying on statements, <em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em> = .37)<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>Scale Descriptive Indices:<\/strong> Across the sample, the overall scale mean was <em>M<\/em> = 3.96 (<em>SD<\/em> = 0.56; <em>Median<\/em> = 4.00; <em>Mode<\/em> = 4.00). Skewness for the composite scale was -0.44 and kurtosis was -0.03, indicating an approximately normal distribution with mild, typical positive evaluation bias common to workplace leadership measures<\/span>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n<p>The structural dimensionality of the 16 items was evaluated using <strong>Exploratory Factor Analysis with Maximum-Likelihood (ML) Estimation<\/strong> based on the empirical data from 202 respondents. Examination of the initial eigenvalue distribution and visual inspection of Cattell&#39;s scree test strongly supported a <strong>unidimensional factor solution<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Eigenvalue Structure:<\/strong> The first extracted factor accounted for <strong>43.2%<\/strong> of the total common variance, with an initial eigenvalue far exceeding subsequent factors. The second factor explained only <strong>8.5%<\/strong> of the variance, followed by negligible subsequent components.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scree Test Interpretation:<\/strong> The sharp elbow inflection after the first factor confirmed that the items share a predominant primary dimension of general dyadic relationship quality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Standardized maximum-likelihood factor loadings for all 16 items are summarized below:<\/p>\n<table style=\"width:100%; border-collapse:collapse; margin:20px 0;\">\n<thead>\n<tr style=\"background:#f1f5f9; text-align:left; border-bottom:2px solid #cbd5e1;\">\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Dimension<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item # and Core Indicator<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">Mean (<em>M<\/em>)<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\"><em>SD<\/em><\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\"><em>r<sub>it<\/sub><\/em><\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">Factor Loading (&lambda;)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td rowspan=\"4\" style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; vertical-align:top;\"><strong>Respect<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 1 (Highlights my importance)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.41<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">1.08<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.56<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 2 (Praises after difficult tasks)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.75<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.99<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.58<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 3 (Adopts suggested solutions)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.91<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.89<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.54<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 4 (Acknowledges my opinion)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.23<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.70<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.63<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.68<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td rowspan=\"4\" style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; vertical-align:top;\"><strong>Trust<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 5 (Relies on my statements)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.28<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.71<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.37<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.57<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 6 (Accepts my decisions)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.00<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.60<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.45<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 7 (Grants access to information)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.59<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.72<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.37<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 8 (Assigns difficult tasks)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.26<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.80<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.49<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.39<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td rowspan=\"4\" style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; vertical-align:top;\"><strong>Encouragement<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 9 (Cheers me up after mistakes)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.66<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.93<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.65<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 10 (Encourages tackling new things)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.01<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.86<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.72<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.69<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 11 (Helps find solutions)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.87<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.96<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.68<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.66<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 12 (Supports against outsiders)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.18<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.85<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.70<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td rowspan=\"4\" style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; vertical-align:top;\"><strong>Affection<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 13 (Creates collegial atmosphere)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.03<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.97<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.62<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 14 (On the same wavelength)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.66<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.91<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.79<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.81<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 15 (Has a good relationship)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">4.15<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">0.74<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.69<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8fafc;\">\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Item 16 (Jokes together with me)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">3.48<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">1.20<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.54<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:8px; border:1px solid #cbd5e1; text-align:center;\">.51<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\">Factor loadings ranged from .31 (Item 7) to .81 (Item 14). Items from the Affection (&lambda; = .51 to .81) and Encouragement (&lambda; = .66 to .72) subscales exhibited particularly high saturation on the primary relationship quality dimension. Because the unidimensional model accounts for the dominant variance, the authors recommend using the global sum or mean score in general predictive research. However, researchers conducting granular investigations into leadership exchange currencies may retain the four sub-dimensions for exploratory profile analyses upon consultation with the authors<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h2>Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Formal Tool Name:<\/strong> Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version (LRQ-E; German: <em>Skala zur Erfassung der F\u00fchrungsbeziehungsqualit\u00e4t aus Mitarbeitersicht<\/em>).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Target Population:<\/strong> Employed adult professionals across corporate, industrial, and administrative sectors who report to a designated direct line manager or supervisor.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Administration Format:<\/strong> Standardized self-report pencil-and-paper or web-based survey questionnaire. Completion time is approximately 4 to 6 minutes.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Item Count:<\/strong> 16 items structured across four conceptually balanced dimensions (Respect: Items 1\u20134; Trust: Items 5\u20138; Encouragement: Items 9\u201312; Affection: Items 13\u201316).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Response Format:<\/strong> Symmetrical 5-point Likert rating scale:\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>1<\/strong> = <em>trifft gar nicht zu<\/em> (Does not apply at all)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>2<\/strong> = <em>trifft wenig zu<\/em> (Applies slightly)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>3<\/strong> = <em>trifft mittelm\u00e4\u00dfig zu<\/em> (Applies moderately)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>4<\/strong> = <em>trifft \u00fcberwiegend zu<\/em> (Largely applies)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"arabpsy-eq\" dir=\"ltr\"><strong>5<\/strong> = <em>trifft v\u00f6llig zu<\/em> (Completely applies)<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scoring Procedures:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>All 16 items are positively keyed; no reverse scoring is required.<\/li>\n<li>An unweighted global sum score can be computed by summing all 16 items (ranging from 16 to 80).<\/li>\n<li>Alternatively, a mean composite score is calculated by averaging all 16 items (ranging from 1.00 to 5.00), preserving the original response metric.<\/li>\n<li>Higher aggregate scores indicate greater perceived leadership relationship quality, characterized by mutual trust, high respect, developmental encouragement, and warm interpersonal affection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Parallel Leader Version:<\/strong> A reciprocal parallel instrument exists for supervisors (Leader Version; <em>F\u00fchrungspersonen-Version<\/em>), in which the item formulations are reflected to capture the leader&#39;s perspective of the exchange with a specific subordinate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Permissions &amp; Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n<p>The Leadership Relationship Quality Scale was developed between 2002 and 2004 as part of the research project <em>&quot;F\u00fchrungsverhalten im Kontext der Geschlechterbeziehung&quot;<\/em> (Leadership Behavior in the Context of Gender Relations), funded by the German Research Foundation (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.dfg.de\/en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft<\/a>, DFG). The scale is published for scientific and academic research purposes.<\/p>\n<p>No licensing fee is charged for non-commercial academic research and university teaching. Researchers planning to utilize the German original items, the parallel leader version, or adapted language forms in empirical investigations are requested to contact the primary authors (Dr. Hans-Joachim Wolfram or Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr) for official documentation and permission.<\/p>\n<h2>References<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Allen, N. J., &amp; Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. <em>Journal of Occupational Psychology<\/em>, 63(1), 1\u201318. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Baillod, J., &amp; Semmer, N. (1994). Fluktuation und Berufsverl\u00e4ufe bei Computerfachleuten [Turnover and career paths of computer specialists]. <em>Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie<\/em>, 38(4), 152\u2013163.<\/li>\n<li>Bass, B. M., &amp; Avolio, B. J. (1995). <em>MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research<\/em>. Mind Garden.<\/li>\n<li>Blau, P. M. (1964). <em>Exchange and Power in Social Life<\/em>. John Wiley &amp; Sons.<\/li>\n<li>Cropanzano, R., &amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. <em>Journal of Management<\/em>, 31(6), 874\u2013900. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0149206305279602\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0149206305279602<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., &amp; Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Performance<\/em>, 10(2), 184\u2013200. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0030-5073(73)90012-3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0030-5073(73)90012-3<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. <em>Administrative Science Quarterly<\/em>, 44(2), 350\u2013383. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/2666999\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/2666999<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Felfe, J., &amp; Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche modifizierte Fassung des Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) [German modified version of the MLQ]. In A. Gl\u00f6ckner-Rist (Ed.), <em>ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente<\/em> (Version 6.00). ZUMA.<\/li>\n<li>Frese, M. (1989). G\u00fctekriterien der Skalen zur Erfassung von sozialer Unterst\u00fctzung am Arbeitsplatz [Quality criteria of scales measuring social support at work]. <em>Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie<\/em>, 33(3), 143\u2013147.<\/li>\n<li>Frese, M., &amp; Zapf, D. (1987). Eine Skala zur Erfassung von sozialen Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz [A scale for assessing social stressors at work]. <em>Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Arbeitswissenschaft<\/em>, 41(3), 134\u2013141.<\/li>\n<li>Graen, G. B., &amp; Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. <em>Research in Organizational Behavior<\/em>, 9, 175\u2013208.<\/li>\n<li>Graen, G. B., &amp; 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. <em>The Leadership Quarterly<\/em>, 6(2), 219\u2013247. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/1048-9843(95)90036-5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/1048-9843(95)90036-5<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. <em>American Psychologist<\/em>, 44(3), 513\u2013524. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0003-066X.44.3.513\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0003-066X.44.3.513<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Liden, R. C., &amp; Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. <em>Journal of Management<\/em>, 24(1), 43\u201372. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/014920639802400105\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/014920639802400105<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Mayring, P. (1983). <em>Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken<\/em>. Beltz Verlag.<\/li>\n<li>Mohr, G., Wolfram, H.-J., &amp; Schyns, B. (2004). Kommunikationsqualit\u00e4t zwischen F\u00fchrungskr\u00e4ften und MitarbeiterInnen aus Sicht der MitarbeiterInnen [Quality of communication between supervisors and employees from the employees&#8217; perspective]. In <em>Forschungsbericht Universit\u00e4t Leipzig<\/em>. Universit\u00e4t Leipzig.<\/li>\n<li>Paul, T., &amp; Schyns, B. (2002). Deutsche \u00dcbersetzung der LMX-Skala von Liden und Maslyn (1998) [German translation of the LMX scale by Liden &amp; Maslyn]. In <em>Forschungsbericht<\/em>. Universit\u00e4t Leipzig.<\/li>\n<li>Pundt, A. (2002). <em>Voice Behavior: Validierung einer deutschen Version des Instruments von Van Dyne und LePine<\/em>. Universit\u00e4t Leipzig.<\/li>\n<li>Schmidt, K.-H., Hollmann, S., &amp; Sodenkamp, D. (1998). Psychometrische Eigenschaften und Validit\u00e4t einer deutschen Fassung des Commitment-Fragebogens von Allen und Meyer (1990) [Psychometric properties and validity of a German version of the commitment questionnaire by Allen &amp; Meyer]. <em>Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Diff. und Diagnostische Psychologie<\/em>, 19(2), 93\u2013106.<\/li>\n<li>Schyns, B., &amp; Paul, T. (2002). Deutsche Version der LMX-7 Skala von Graen und Uhl-Bien (1995) [German version of the LMX-7 scale by Graen &amp; Uhl-Bien]. In <em>Forschungsbericht<\/em>. Universit\u00e4t Leipzig.<\/li>\n<li>Schyns, B., &amp; von Collani, G. (2003). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. <em>European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology<\/em>, 11(2), 219\u2013241. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13594320244000148\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13594320244000148<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Van Dyne, L., &amp; LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predict validity. <em>Academy of Management Journal<\/em>, 41(1), 108\u2013119. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/256902\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/256902<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-items-container\" style=\"background:#ffffff; border:1px solid #e2e8f0; border-radius:12px; margin:28px 0; overflow:hidden; box-shadow:0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.03);\">\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-notice\" style=\"direction:ltr; text-align:left; background:#f8fafc; border-bottom:1px solid #e2e8f0; padding:14px 20px; font-size:13.5px; color:#475569; font-weight:500;\">\n    Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:\n  <\/div>\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-english-box\" style=\"direction:ltr; text-align:left; padding:20px 24px; font-family:-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:14.5px; color:#1e293b; line-height:1.7;\">\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-item-row\" style=\"background:#ffffff; border:1px solid #e2e8f0; border-radius:8px; padding:12px 16px; margin-bottom:10px; display:flex; align-items:flex-start; gap:12px; box-shadow:0 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.02);\">\n  <span style=\"display:inline-flex; align-items:center; justify-content:center; min-width:28px; height:28px; background:#2563eb; color:#ffffff; font-weight:700; font-size:12.5px; border-radius:50%; flex-shrink:0; margin-top:1px;\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<div style=\"flex:1; color:#0f172a; font-size:14.5px; font-weight:500; line-height:1.6;\">41<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-item-row\" style=\"background:#ffffff; border:1px solid #e2e8f0; border-radius:8px; padding:12px 16px; margin-bottom:10px; display:flex; align-items:flex-start; gap:12px; box-shadow:0 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.02);\">\n  <span style=\"display:inline-flex; align-items:center; justify-content:center; min-width:28px; height:28px; background:#2563eb; color:#ffffff; font-weight:700; font-size:12.5px; border-radius:50%; flex-shrink:0; margin-top:1px;\">2<\/span><\/p>\n<div style=\"flex:1; color:#0f172a; font-size:14.5px; font-weight:500; line-height:1.6;\">23<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"wpt-scale-item-row\" style=\"background:#ffffff; border:1px solid #e2e8f0; border-radius:8px; padding:12px 16px; margin-bottom:10px; display:flex; align-items:flex-start; gap:12px; box-shadow:0 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.02);\">\n  <span style=\"display:inline-flex; align-items:center; justify-content:center; min-width:28px; height:28px; background:#2563eb; color:#ffffff; font-weight:700; font-size:12.5px; border-radius:50%; flex-shrink:0; margin-top:1px;\">3<\/span><\/p>\n<div style=\"flex:1; color:#0f172a; font-size:14.5px; font-weight:500; line-height:1.6;\">58<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Leadership Relationship Quality Scale \u2013 Employee Version (LRQ-E) is a 16-item psychometric instrument assessing dyadic supervisor-employee relationships across four concrete behavioral dimensions: Respect, Trust, Encouragement, and Affection. With an internal consistency of Cronbach&#8217;s alpha = .91 and a unidimensional factor structure explaining 43.2% of variance, the LRQ-E offers an everyday behavioral alternative to classical LMX scales.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[26481,13,2],"tags":[26484,4878,26482,22269,92,26483,12301],"class_list":["post-8937","psych_scale","type-psych_scale","status-publish","hentry","category-leadership","category-organizational-psychology","category-psychometrics","tag-employee-relations","tag-leader-member-exchange","tag-leadership-relationship-quality","tag-lmx","tag-psychological-safety","tag-trust-in-leadership","tag-workplace-assessment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/8937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_scale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/8937\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}