Verbal Management Behaviour (Employee Perspective)

Abstract

The Verbal Management Behaviour Scale (VMBS; German: Verbales Kommunikationsverhalten von Führungspersonen aus Sicht der MitarbeiterInnen) is an economical, psychometrically validated instrument developed to operationalize leadership communication behaviors from the vantage point of subordinate employees. Developed within the context of a project funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) led by Gisela Mohr and colleagues at the University of Leipzig, the instrument addresses a pervasive limitation in leadership research: the tendency to conceptualize managerial conduct at overly global, abstract levels (such as broad leadership styles) rather than capturing observable, concrete interactive behaviors. The VMBS isolates six specific communicative actions demonstrated during work-related interactions, including soliciting subordinate perspectives, inviting concerns, accurately mirroring employee contributions, offering constructive feedback, clarifying ambiguous statements, and exploring collaborative solution paths.

Administered using a standardized five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“does not apply at all”) to 5 (“fully applies”), the VMBS yields a single unweighted composite score reflecting the degree of perceived participatory, responsive, and constructive verbal leadership behavior. In its focal validation study encompassing N = 202 employees from 49 workgroups across the banking and insurance sectors, the six-item measure demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Exploratory maximum-likelihood factor analysis confirmed a distinct unidimensional structure, with the primary factor accounting for 53.1% of the shared variance and item factor loadings ranging between .62 and .79. The scale achieved solid internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .82. Criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity were corroborated through substantial positive correlations with communication quality (r = .69), transformational leadership (r = .69), leader–member exchange (LMX; r = .63), supervisory social support (r = .60), employee voice behavior (r = .28), job satisfaction (r = .27), and occupational self-efficacy (r = .19), alongside a significant negative association with workplace social stressors (r = −.29). Consequently, the instrument offers researchers and human resource practitioners an empirically grounded, brief assessment tool for diagnostics, intervention evaluation, and leadership development.

Keywords

Verbal Management Behaviour, managerial communication, leadership perception, Leader-Member Exchange, employee voice, psychometrics, organizational behavior, supervisory feedback, workplace communication, constructive criticism

Authors

The Verbal Management Behaviour Scale was conceptualized and validated by organizational psychologists affiliated with the Institute of Applied Psychology at the University of Leipzig (Universität Leipzig), Germany, within the research framework examining leadership behavior in the context of gender relations (Führungsverhalten im Kontext der Geschlechterbeziehung), supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

• Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr — Principal Investigator, Emeritus Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Applied Psychology, University of Leipzig, Neumarkt 9–19, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. Contact: [email protected].
• Associated Research Team — Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Purpose

Leadership within modern organizational systems is realized predominantly through interpersonal verbal exchanges. Classical observational studies of managerial work (Guest, 1956; Mintzberg, 1973; Neuberger, 2002) demonstrate that managers spend the vast majority of their daily working hours engaged in direct oral interaction. Despite this empirical reality, mainstream organizational psychometrics has historically prioritized macro-level taxonomies, assessing leadership through high-order conceptualizations such as charismatic, transformational, transactional, or autocratic leadership styles. Although informative, such global characterizations frequently aggregate disparate managerial behaviors into sweeping abstractions, leaving organizational practitioners and researchers with limited insight into the exact communicative actions that produce favorable subordinate perceptions.

The primary purpose of the Verbal Management Behaviour Scale is to bridge this gap between macro-level leadership frameworks and day-to-day managerial conduct. Specifically, the scale was engineered to assess supervisory verbal interaction behaviors at a concrete, highly behavioral level of observation, as perceived directly by reporting subordinates. Subordinate perceptions of supervisor credibility, competence, and benevolence are largely formed during micro-interactions: how meetings are conducted, how inquiries are handled, whether critical feedback is delivered constructively, and whether employee input is genuinely heard and mirrored.

In applied organizational development, human resources consulting, and leadership coaching, the VMBS serves several key clinical and practical purposes:

• Micro-Level Diagnostic Profiling: Because traditional leadership assessments frequently rely on dispositional traits or broad stylistic labels, managers often receive vague feedback (e.g., “needs to be more inspiring”). The VMBS provides actionable, concrete behavioral markers (e.g., inviting personal concerns, repeating contributions accurately, asking for solutions), giving leaders clear behavioral targets for behavioral modification.
• Evaluation of Leadership Training Programs: Interventions targeted at improving supervisory communication, such as active listening seminars or participatory management workshops, require sensitive pre-post instruments that can detect changes in day-to-day verbal patterns rather than relying on sluggish macro-traits.
• Upward Feedback and 360-Degree Appraisals: The instrument can be seamlessly incorporated into multi-source feedback systems because of its brief, six-item format, reducing survey fatigue while delivering high psychometric fidelity.
• Investigating Leadership Dynamics: In empirical organizational scholarship, the scale enables researchers to disentangle the communicative micro-foundations of high-quality dyadic relationships (Leader–Member Exchange), psychological safety, employee proactive voice behavior, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the VMBS is perceived verbal management behaviour (or communicative supervisory conduct) from the subordinate’s perspective. It does not measure generalized managerial charisma, overarching organizational vision, or technical task competence. Instead, it captures the extent to which a direct supervisor exhibits participatory, attentive, clarifying, and developmentally supportive communication during direct verbal exchanges.

Although the scale functions empirically as a single-factor, unidimensional construct, an in-depth examination of the six validated items reveals four interlocking behavioral facets that characterize effective interpersonal supervisory dialogue:

1. Participatory Solicitation and Dialogue Initiation

A central pillar of the construct is the managerial behavior of actively creating conversational space for subordinates. This involves not merely allowing subordinates to speak when spoken to, but proactively soliciting their viewpoints and encouraging them to voice their own professional concerns. Items such as “Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r erfragt die Sichtweisen der Anwesenden” (The supervisor asks for the viewpoints of those present) and “Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r fordert mich auf, eigene Anliegen einzubringen” (The supervisor prompts me to bring forward my own concerns) reflect this active initiation. Leaders scoring high on this dimension foster an environment of communicative inclusion, lowering psychological barriers that might otherwise inhibit employee speaking up.

2. Active Listening and Accurate Content Paraphrasing

Effective managerial communication depends fundamentally on feedback loops confirming that employee messages have been received without distortion. Item 3, “Wenn ich Beiträge liefere, gibt mein/e Vorgesetzte/r diese präzise wieder” (When I contribute, my supervisor accurately restates what I said), directly targets the behavioral manifestation of active listening through verbal paraphrasing and reflection. In psychological communication theory, accurate mirroring confirms that the listener has cognitively processed the speaker’s semantic content and validates the speaker’s status as a respected cognitive contributor.

3. Constructive Feedback and Developmental Elaboration

Interactions between leaders and followers inevitably encompass evaluative critique, problem-solving, and error management. The VMBS operationalizes constructive verbal critique and clarification through items assessing whether leaders constructively build upon employee statements and explore ambiguities collaboratively. Item 4 (“Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r greift meine Äußerungen konstruktiv auf”) and Item 5 (“Wenn Unklarheiten bestehen, bittet mein/e Vorgesetzte/r mich, meine Aussagen genauer zu erläutern”) reflect non-defensive, task-oriented elaboration. Rather than dismissing divergent views or penalizing communicative ambiguity, the leader utilizes questioning techniques to deepen understanding.

4. Autonomy-Supportive Inquiries for Problem Resolution

The final facet operationalized within the construct involves supervisory encouragement of subordinate cognitive problem-solving. Item 6, “Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r fragt nach meinen Lösungsansätzen für anstehende Aufgaben” (My supervisor asks for my proposed solutions to upcoming tasks), captures communicative coaching rather than directive micro-management. By prompting employees to articulate their own problem-solving frameworks, the supervisor reinforces employee competence, agency, and self-efficacy.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture supporting the Verbal Management Behaviour Scale is anchored in multiple foundational paradigms within organizational psychology, interaction analysis, and social-cognitive theory.

Yukl’s Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviors

A primary theoretical departure point for Mohr and colleagues is Gary Yukl’s taxonomy of leadership behavior (Yukl, 2002). Yukl emphasized that managerial behavior can be classified across multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from overarching leadership orientations (such as change-oriented or relations-oriented styles) down to middle-range behavioral categories (e.g., consulting, clarifying, recognizing) and finally to discrete, observable interactional events. Yukl warned that leadership research frequently fails to achieve ecological validity when measures remain trapped at the highest level of abstraction. By isolating concrete verbal actions, the VMBS operationalizes the most micro-level behavioral tier of Yukl’s hierarchy, where cognitive perceptions of leadership are initially formed and continuously updated.

Mintzberg’s Observational Analysis of Managerial Work

Henry Mintzberg’s seminal observational studies (1973) established that the managerial reality is marked by brevity, fragmentation, and verbal communication. Managers spend an estimated 70% to 80% of their working time in oral conversation (meetings, telephone conversations, informal corridor exchanges). As highlighted by Neuberger (2002), supervisory influence, authority, and alignment are not delivered via abstract organizational policies, but through conversational practices. The VMBS builds directly upon this empirical foundation by treating the spoken interaction as the primary medium through which leadership is exerted.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Social Exchange Theory

From the perspective of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Leader-Member Exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden & Maslyn, 1998), dyadic workplace relationships mature through iterative sequences of interactive behaviors. When a manager routinely solicits a subordinate’s viewpoints, mirrors their contributions, and encourages their autonomous problem-solving, this signals mutual trust, psychological respect, and relational investment. These high-quality communicative exchanges form the behavioral infrastructure that elevates dyadic relationships from purely contractual (out-group) to reciprocal, high-trust partnerships (in-group).

Psychological Safety and Voice Behavior Models

According to Amy Edmondson’s model of team psychological safety (1999) and Van Dyne and LePine’s conceptualization of employee voice behavior (1998), employees routinely perform cognitive risk assessments before expressing ideas, reporting mistakes, or offering novel solutions. If leaders react dismissively or aggressively to subordinate statements, employees engage in protective self-censorship. Conversely, when supervisors consistently demonstrate constructive verbal inquiry, active listening, and supportive questioning, they signal communicative openness. This behavioral signaling diminishes the perceived interpersonal risk of participation, directly fostering employee proactive voice, job satisfaction, and occupational self-efficacy.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the VMBS followed a rigorous empirical program characterized by systematic behavioral video coding, content validation by panels of organizational psychologists, and cross-sectional survey testing across diverse workgroups.

Content and Face Validity

The construction of the scale utilized an empirical behavioral derivation methodology designed to maximize content and ecological validity. Rather than formulating items purely from deductive speculative hypotheses, the researchers conducted video recordings of naturally occurring regular team meetings across six organizational workgroups (N = 6) in the banking and insurance sectors. Three of these teams were led by female supervisors, and three by male supervisors, with an average team size of nine employees.

From approximately 10 hours and 40 minutes of total video recordings, a three-hour representative subset of footage was extracted using a combined time- and event-sampling protocol (capturing 10 minutes from the meeting start, 10 minutes from the mid-meeting discussion, and 10 minutes from meeting closure). Professional work and organizational psychologists analyzed these video sequences, documenting concrete verbal actions and linguistic formulations used by leaders. This process generated an initial pool of 255 behavioral questionnaire items, which was systematically distilled to isolate the six core items capturing verbal management behavior from the employee perspective.

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

To establish criterion-related and convergent validity, the scale was administered to a sample of N = 202 employees representing 49 workgroups across 19 companies within the financial services and insurance sector. The VMBS composite score demonstrated robust, statistically significant correlations with established organizational and psychological constructs, adhering precisely to theoretical expectations:

• Communication Quality (r = .69, p < .01): Measured using the comprehensive communication quality scale developed by Mohr et al. (2004), confirming that the six items capture essential dimensions of communicative excellence.
• Transformational Leadership (r = .69, p < .01): Measured using Bass and Avolio’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (German version by Felfe & Goihl, 2002), indicating that positive verbal interactions are integral components of inspirational and intellectually stimulating leadership styles.
• Leader–Member Exchange (LMX; r = .63, p < .01): Measured via Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) multidimensional LMX scale (German adaptation by Paul & Schyns, 2002), demonstrating that high VMBS scores are closely coupled with high dyadic relationship quality.
• Supervisory Social Support (r = .60, p < .01): Assessed with Frese’s (1989) supervisory support scale, proving that concrete verbal behaviors function as primary conduits of perceived emotional and instrumental support.
• Employee Voice Behavior (r = .28, p < .01): Measured via Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) voice scale (German version by Pundt, 2002), validating the hypothesis that participatory supervisory speech promotes subordinate speaking up.
• Job Satisfaction (r = .27, p < .01): Assessed with the validated Baillod and Semmer (1994) scale, confirming positive distal employee well-being outcomes.
• Occupational Self-Efficacy (r = .19, p < .01): Assessed via Schyns and von Collani’s (2002) generalized occupational self-efficacy scale, confirming that autonomy-supportive dialogue enhances personal mastery beliefs.
• Affective Commitment (r = .15, p < .05): Assessed via Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale (German version by Schmidt et al., 1998), reflecting modest positive attachment to the organization.

Discriminant and Divergent Validity

Discriminant validity was evidenced by the inverse relationship between perceived verbal management behaviour and workplace strain. Specifically, the VMBS demonstrated a statistically significant negative correlation with workplace social stressors (r = −.29, p < .01; assessed via Frese & Zapf, 1987). Subordinates whose supervisors exhibit participatory, constructive verbal behaviors experience markedly fewer interpersonal frictions, social tensions, and hostility in their immediate working environment.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates solid internal consistency despite its deliberate brevity, rendering it highly efficient for field administration without compromising measurement precision.

Internal Consistency

In the primary validation sample (N = 202), the six-item instrument yielded an internal consistency coefficient of:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): .82

This value comfortably exceeds the standard benchmark of .70 recommended for research purposes and satisfies the .80 threshold commonly applied in organizational diagnostics. Given that Cronbach’s alpha is mathematically constrained by the number of test items, achieving an alpha of .82 with only six items underscores the strong conceptual coherence and low residual error variance among the constituent indicators.

Item Discrimination and Classical Test Parameters

Corrected item-total correlations (Trennschärfen, r_it-i) and descriptive distributional parameters from the empirical validation study confirm balanced item performance:

• Item 1: Mean = 4.74, SD = 0.82, Corrected Item-Total r = .61, Skewness = −0.36, Kurtosis = −0.29
• Item 2: Mean = 3.96, SD = 0.89, Corrected Item-Total r = .65, Skewness = −0.53, Kurtosis = −0.44
• Item 3: Mean = 3.71, SD = 0.82, Corrected Item-Total r = .60, Skewness = −0.30, Kurtosis = −0.37
• Item 4: Mean = 4.19, SD = 0.70, Corrected Item-Total r = .66, Skewness = −0.55, Kurtosis = 0.09
• Item 5: Mean = 3.74, SD = 1.00, Corrected Item-Total r = .52, Skewness = −0.63, Kurtosis = −0.12
• Item 6: Mean = 4.32, SD = 0.75, Corrected Item-Total r = .48, Skewness = −0.80, Kurtosis = 0.16

All corrected item-total correlations exceed the conventional .30 criterion, ranging from .48 to .66, confirming that every single item contributes meaningfully to the common variance of the composite measurement.

Factor Analysis

To verify the internal factorial architecture of the VMBS, exploratory factor analysis using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (ML) was conducted on the responses of the 202 surveyed employees.

Dimensionality and Scree Test

Examination of the extracted eigenvalues and Cattell’s scree test strongly confirmed a unidimensional factorial structure:

• First Extracted Factor: Explained 53.1% of the total common variance, with an eigenvalue far exceeding unity.
• Second Factor: Accounted for only 13.3% of the variance, exhibiting a steep drop on the scree plot and failing to provide substantive or statistical justification for multidimensional partitioning.

Because the first factor explained more than half of the shared variance and subsequent factors yielded negligible increments, a one-factor solution was retained as both parsimonious and psychometrically robust.

Factor Loadings

The standardized factor loadings for the six items under the maximum likelihood solution demonstrate strong saturation on the general verbal management behavior factor:

• Item 2 (Prompting personal concerns): λ = .79
• Item 4 (Constructive uptake of statements / room for questions): λ = .79
• Item 1 (Asking for viewpoints of those present): λ = .76
• Item 3 (Accurate restatement of contributions): λ = .74
• Item 5 (Constructive critique / clarification requests): λ = .67
• Item 6 (Asking for solutions / willing explanation): λ = .62

All factor loadings exceed the .60 threshold, indicating that each item is an excellent behavioral marker of the latent communicative construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Verbal Management Behaviour Scale is a standardized, self-report subordinate questionnaire intended for diagnostic and research applications in organizational contexts.

• Instrument Type: Subordinate rating scale / organizational climate and leadership assessment tool.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based survey, or integrated module within 360-degree feedback platforms.
• Target Respondent: Employees assessing their direct line manager or supervisor.
• Language of Validation: German (deutsch).
• Number of Items: 6 items.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = trifft überhaupt nicht zu (does not apply at all)
  • 2 = trifft eher nicht zu (does rather not apply)
  • 3 = teils/teils (partly / partly)
  • 4 = trifft eher zu (does rather apply)
  • 5 = trifft voll und ganz zu (fully applies)
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • All six items are positively formulated; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • The overall scale score is computed as an unweighted mean score across all six items (summing raw item ratings from 1 to 5 and dividing by 6), preserving the original 1 to 5 metric.
  • Alternatively, an unweighted sum score (ranging from 6 to 30) can be calculated. Higher values reflect higher levels of constructive, participatory, and supportive verbal leadership behavior.
• Sample Norms and Distributional Baseline:
  • Overall Scale Mean: 3.93
  • Scale Standard Deviation (SD): 0.60
  • Median: 4.00
  • Mode: 4.00
  • Scale Skewness: −0.33
  • Scale Kurtosis: 0.06
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and psychometrically published in 2004 through the research project Führungsverhalten im Kontext der Geschlechterbeziehung funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) at the University of Leipzig.

• Accessibility: The instrument is non-commercial and placed in the public domain for academic research and non-profit educational purposes. Researchers and practitioners may administer the scale without licensing fees.
• Usage Terms: Users are expected to cite the original authors and validation studies (Mohr et al., 2004) in any resulting publications, theses, or formal research reports. Commercial licensing or commercial test repository redistribution should be coordinated with the principal investigator.
• Inquiries and Contact: Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr, Universität Leipzig, Institut für Angewandte Psychologie, Neumarkt 9–19, 04109 Leipzig, Germany (E-Mail: [email protected]).

References

• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
• Baillod, J., & Semmer, N. (1994). Fluktuation und Turnaround-Intention bei Computerfachleuten [Turnover and turnover intention among computer professionals]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 38(4), 152–163.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: MLQ technical report. Mind Garden.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche Überarbeitung des Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X Short). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Version 6.0). Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
• Frese, M. (1989). Gütekriterien der Skalen zur Erfassung von sozialer Unterstützung am Arbeitsplatz [Quality criteria of scales for measuring social support at work]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 33(4), 188–194.
• Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1987). Eine Skala zur Erfassung von sozialen Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz [A scale to assess social stressors at work]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 41, 134–141.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Guest, R. H. (1956). Of time and the foreman. Personnel, 32(6), 478–486.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400105
• Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Harper & Row.
• Mohr, G., Müller, A., & Rigotti, T. (2004). Kommunikationsqualität zwischen Führungskräften und MitarbeiterInnen aus Sicht der MitarbeiterInnen [Communication quality between leaders and employees from the employee perspective]. Universität Leipzig.
• Neuberger, O. (2002). Führen und führen lassen: Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Kritik der Führungsforschung [Leading and being led: Approaches, results, and critique of leadership research] (6th ed.). Lucius & Lucius.
• Paul, T., & Schyns, B. (2002). Deutsche Version des Leader-Member-Exchange-Fragebogens (LMX-MDM). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Version 6.0). Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
• Pundt, A. (2002). Voice Behavior: Konstruktion und Validierung einer deutschen Version des Fragebogens von Van Dyne und LePine [Master’s thesis, Universität Leipzig].
• Schmidt, K. H., Hollmann, S., & Sels, R. (1998). Entwicklung und Validierung einer deutschen Fassung des Fragebogens zum Commitment von Allen und Meyer. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 42(3), 131–140.
• Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000148
• Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902
• Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Items of the Scale