OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Handbook of Management Scales/Team performance
## Team performance (alpha = 0.93)
### Definition

Team performance is defined as the extent to which a team is able to meet its output goals (e.g., quality, functionality, and reliability of outputs), the expectations of its members, or its cost and time objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).

### Items

* Our team effectively used its resources. (0.92)
* Our team was within the proposed budget. (0.96)
* Our team was within the proposed time-schedule. (0.87)
* Our team was able to meet its goals. (0.93)
* Our team was able to respond quickly to problems. (0.88)
(items adopted from Ancona & Caldwell, 1992, and Oh, Chung & Labianca, 2004)

### Source

* Kostopoulos et al. (2013): Structure and Function of Team Learning Emergence: A Multilevel Empirical Validation. Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1430–1461

### Related Scales

* Alliance performance
# Handbook of Management Scales/Team psychological safety
## Team psychological safety (alpha = 0.701, CR = 0.714, AVE = 0.461)
### Description

The article examines three factors of intellectual capital: Worker expertise, information sharing quality, and team psychological safety.
The 5-point Likert-type scale for team psychological safety was developed from previous literature in order to assure content validity. It was based on items taken from Edmondson (1999).

### Definition

Team psychological safety refers to team members feeling safe to discuss errors by openly seeking input from others who are needed to make required changes.

### Items

* If an implementation team member made a mistake on this team, it was held against him/her. (reverse coded; dropped after confirmatory factor analysis)
* Team members feared that bringing up problem/issues would have negative effects on their career prospects. (reverse coded; dropped after confirmatory factor analysis)
* People on this team sometimes rejected other members. (reverse coded)
* It was safe to take a risk on this team. (dropped after confirmatory factor analysis)
* No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermined my efforts.
* Each member of the implementation team felt they were valuable to the team.

### Source

* Lee et al. (2011): The roles of worker expertise, information sharing quality, and psychological safety in manufacturing process innovation: An intellectual capital perspective. Production and Operations Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 556–570

### Comments

The AVE value was below 0.5 and the factor loading of item three was below 0.6 and these values are, thus, too low.
# Handbook of Management Scales/Technical exchanges
## Technical exchanges (alpha = 0.83)
### Definition

Technical exchanges are understood as small-scale exchanges of technical information.

### Items

* Our engineers and sales staff have a close relationship with our partner’s staff.
* In the development process, direction of communication is bilateral rather than unilateral.
* Frequent contact between our partner and our engineers is important.
* Through informal discussion, our partner often communicates important engineering information to us.
* Communication with our partner often begins to occur earlier in the development process.
* Informal communications often reduce lead time in the development process.

### Source

* Kotabe et al. (2002): Gaining from Vertical Partnerships: Knowledge Transfer, Relationship Duration, and Supplier Performance Improvement in the U.S. and Japanese Automotive Industries. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 293–316

### Comments

The authors remarked that a potential issue with the last item is "that it mentions both a practice and an outcome". The unit of analysis remains unclear; e.g., in some items it seems to be the inter-organizational level, whereas in some items it seems to be the staff/staff level. Do items containing words like "engineering" and "development" necessarily measure the exchange of "technical information"?
# Handbook of Management Scales/Technical proficiency
## Technical proficiency (alpha = 0.83)
### Description

Although certain items of some scales were developed specifically for the Japanese context, many were derived from existing validated scales. Respondents answered all questions using a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 10; field research suggested that an 11-point scale was appropriate for studying Japanese management practices because a 100 percent grading system is used in most Japanese schools.

### Definition

Technical proficiency encompasses such activities as conducting engineering and manufacturing evaluations, product testing, determining product specifications, prototyping, and building the final product.

### Items

Please circle the answer that best represents your judgment about each aspect on "how things actually were during the development of this project" rather than on "how things ought to be". Please indicate how well or adequately your firm undertook each activity in this product development process—relative to "how you think it should have been done". (0 = done very poorly or mistakenly omitted altogether, 10 = done excellently)
* Conducting preliminary engineering, technical and manufacturing assessments. (0.78)
* Building the product to designated or revised specifications. (0.86)
* Evaluating laboratory tests to determine basic performance against specifications. (1.00)
* Executing prototype or "in house" sample product testing. (0.60)
* Determining the final product design and specifications. (0.96)
* Working continuously for cost reduction and quality control. (0.76)

### Source

* Song/Montoya-Weiss (2001): The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New Product Development. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 61-80.

### Comments

The items were evaluated on a scale ranging from 0 to 10. However, the observed mean value is 6.66 rather than 5. It might therefore be recommendable to change the wording, e.g. "ALWAYS conducting preliminary …".

### Related Scales

* Competitive and market intelligence
* Marketing proficiency
# Handbook of Management Scales/Technological uncertainty
## Perceived technological uncertainty (alpha = 0.87)
### Description

Although certain items of some scales were developed specifically for the Japanese context, many were derived from existing validated scales. Respondents answered all questions using a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 10; field research suggested that an 11-point scale was appropriate for studying Japanese management practices because a 100 percent grading system is used in most Japanese schools.

### Definition

Perceived technological uncertainty refers to an individual's perception that he or she is unable to accurately predict or completely understand some aspect of the technological environment.

### Items

We list below some statements about possible technological uncertainties. To what extent do you agree/disagree with each of the following statements about the uncertainties pertaining to this selected development project? (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
* The technology involved in this project was a "well-developed science," i.e., there was a well-developed body of scientific know-how, there were many well-known cause and effect relationships and the predictive state-of-the-art is very high. (reverse-coded) (0.65)
* The rates (speed and pace) of the changes of the technology employed in this project were very unpredictable. (0.73)
* The technology used in this product was changing rapidly. (0.88)
* The changes in R&D technology for this project was very unpredictable. (0.93)
* The technology involved in this project was an "undeveloped science," i.e., the technology was not well understood, the phenomena were not well-defined and the predictive state-of-art was very low. There was much trial and error research. (1.00)
* It was very difficult to predict where the technology used in this product will be in the next 2 to 3 years. (0.99)

### Source

* Song/Montoya-Weiss (2001): The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New Product Development. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 61-80.

### Comments

"Uncertainty" might have two dimensions: dynamism and complexity. Some items are quite long.

### Related Scales

* Technology uncertainty
# Handbook of Management Scales/Teamwork
## Teamwork (alpha = 0.7047)
### Items

* Our plant is organized into permanent production teams.
* During problem solving sessions, we make an effort to get all team members' opinions and ideas before making a decision.
* Our plant forms teams to solve problems.
* In the past three years, many problems have been solved through small group sessions.

### Source

* Flynn et al. (1994): A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 339-366.
# Handbook of Management Scales/Technical synergy
## Technical synergy (alpha = 0.89)
### Description

Although certain items of some scales were developed specifically for the Japanese context, many were derived from existing validated scales. Respondents answered all questions using a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 10; field research suggested that an 11-point scale was appropriate for studying Japanese management practices because a 100 percent grading system is used in most Japanese schools.

### Definition

Technical synergy refers to a project's fit with available R&D, engineering, and production skills and resources.

### Items

To what extent does each statement listed below correctly describe this selected successful project? (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
* Our company's R&D skills were more than adequate for this selected project. (0.91)
* Our company's engineering skills were more than adequate for this selected project. (1.00)
* Our company's R&D resources were more than adequate for this selected project. (0.72)
* Our company's engineering resources were more than adequate for this selected project. (0.82)

### Source

* Song/Montoya-Weiss (2001): The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New Product Development. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 61-80.

### Comments

The items are quite similar. The items were evaluated on a scale ranging from 0 to 10. However, the observed mean value is 6.50 rather than 5. It might therefore be recommendable to change the wording.

### Related Scales

* Marketing synergy
# Handbook of Management Scales/Faithfulness of appropriation
## Faithfulness of appropriation (alpha = 0.91)
### Items

* The developers of the EMS would disagree with how our group used the system.
* Our group probably used the EMS improperly.
* The original developers of the EMS would view our group's use of the system as inappropriate.
* Our group failed to use the EMS as it should have been used.
* We did not use the EMS in the most appropriate fashion.
The items were measured on seven-point Likert scales anchored by the following: extremely likely: quite likely; slightly likely; neither, slightly unlikely; quite unlikely; extremely unlikely.

### Source

* Salisbury et al. (2002): Research Report: Better Theory Through Measurement - Developing a Scale to Capture Consensus on Appropriation. Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 91-103. Previously used by Chin et al. (1997).

### Related Scales

* Consensus on appropriation
* Ease of use
* Usefulness
# Handbook of Management Scales/Employee relations
## Employee relations (alpha = 0.91; composite reliability = 0.90)
### Description

Eight quality management practices were identiﬁed by the authors: customer focus, employee relations, management leadership, process management, product/service design, quality data and reporting, supplier quality management, and training.

### Items

* Amount of feedback provided to employees on their quality performance. (0.84)
* Degree of participation in quality decisions by hourly/nonsupervisory employees. (0.88)
* Extent to which building quality awareness among employees is ongoing. (0.87)
* Extent to which employees are recognized for superior quality performance. (0.75)
All items were adapted from Saraph et al. (1989).

### Source

* Kaynak/Hartley (2008): A replication and extension of quality management into the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 468–489.
# Handbook of Management Scales/Employee involvement
## Employee involvement (alpha > 0.7; composite reliability = 0.83; average variance extracted = 0.50)
### Description

The research takes a step toward clarifying the concept of lean production and develops and validates a multi-dimensional measure of lean production. The 10 distinct dimensions of a lean system are continuous flow, customer involvement, employee involvement, JIT delivery by suppliers, pull, set up time reduction, statistical process control, supplier development, supplier feedback, and total productive/preventive maintenance.

### Definition

Lean production is an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier, customer, and internal variability. This dimension of lean production is about the employees’ role in problem solving, and their cross functional character.

### Items

Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1) no implementation; (2) little implementation; (3) some implementation; (4) extensive implementation; (5) complete implementation.
* Shop-floor employees are key to problem solving teams
* Shop-floor employees drive suggestion programs
* Shop-floor employees lead product/process improvement efforts
* Shop-floor employees undergo cross functional training

### Source

* Shah/Ward (2007): "Deﬁning and developing measures of lean production". Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 785-805, doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.

### Related Scales

* Organization-based self-esteem

## Employee involvement (alpha = 0.79)
### Description

Through a detailed analysis of the literature, twelve constructs of integrated quality management strategies were identified: top management commitment, customer focus, supplier quality management, design quality management, benchmarking, SPC usage, internal quality information usage, employee empowerment, employee involvement, employee training, product quality, and supplier performance. Using a survey of 371 manufacturing firms, the constructs were then empirically tested and validated. For this purpose a confirmatory factor analysis approach was used.

### Items

* Cross-functional teams are often used.
* All employee suggestions are evaluated.
* Most employee suggestions are implemented.

### Source

* Ahire, et al. (1996): "Development and Validation of TQM Implementation Constructs". Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23-56, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00842.x.

### Related Scales

* Leadership involvement in quality
# Handbook of Management Scales/Exposure to external turbulence
## Exposure to external turbulence
### Description

A new scale was developed to measure exposure to external turbulence. The items were based on the supply chain risk management literature.

### Definition

Exposure to external turbulence was defined as an “organization’s actual exposure to upstream and downstream turbulence (i.e., on supplier and on customer markets)”.

### Items

Please rate the extent of fluctuations in your logistics organization’s environment:
* Our environment is characterized by a high number of ongoing fluctuations (e.g. raw material prices).
* Our customer demand is subject to very high fluctuations.
* The supply of our (sub-)suppliers is subject to very high fluctuations.
Items were measured with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = not at all” to “7 = to a very great extent”.

### Source

* Bühler/Wallenburg/Wieland (2016): Accounting for External Turbulence of Logistics Organizations via Performance Measurement Systems. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6

### Comments

The scale was used as a control. No reliability indicators were reported for this scale.
# Handbook of Management Scales/Extension
## Extension (alpha = 0.83)
### Description

The scale has previously been used by Homburg et al. (2003) and Cahill (2006).

### Items

* In the future, the logistics service provider (LSP) will have a higher share of our logistics volume.
* When we bid out other services than the ones we outsource today, we will consider this LSP preferentially.
* In the future, we will use this LSP more than we do now.

### Source

* Wallenburg (2009): Innovation in logistics outsourcing relationships: proactive improvement by logistics service providers as a driver of customer loyalty. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 75–93.
# Handbook of Management Scales/Employee empowerment

Employees satisfaction

## Employee empowerment (alpha = 0.81)
### Description

Through a detailed analysis of the literature, twelve constructs of integrated quality management strategies were identified: top management commitment, customer focus, supplier quality management, design quality management, benchmarking, SPC usage, internal quality information usage, employee empowerment, employee involvement, employee training, product quality, and supplier performance. Using a survey of 371 manufacturing firms, the constructs were then empirically tested and validated. For this purpose a confirmatory factor analysis approach was used.

### Items

* Our line workers inspect the quality of their own work; inspection is not the responsibility of an inspector.
* Line workers are encouraged to fix problems they find.
* Line workers are given the resources necessary to correct quality problems they find.
* Line workers have technical assistance available to them to help them solve quality problems.
* A problem solving network is available to line workers in solving quality related problems.

### Source

* Ahire et al. (1996): Development and Validation of TQM Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23-56.

### Related Scales

* Psychological empowerment in the workplace: meaning, competence, self-determination, impact
# Handbook of Management Scales/Executive commitment
## Executive Commitment
### Description

The paper defines and operationalizes eight Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) competence constructs. A two-stage normative process of scale development is followed. First, a portfolio of eight generic constructs that are hypothesized to be associated with successful ERP adoption is identified. Each construct is then operationalized as a multi-item measurement scale by applying a manual item sorting technique iteratively to independent panels of expert judges until tentative reliability and validity is established. Second, the multi-item scales is further refined and validated using survey data from 79 North American manufacturing users of ERP systems. The following items are taken from the executive commitment dimension of the ERP competence construct.

### Definition

Executive commitment refers to top management's willingness to champion ERP within the organization and allocate the resources required for successful ERP infusion.

### Items

* Functional managers willingly assign resources to the ERP project as they are needed.
* The need for long-term ERP support resources is recognized by management.
* Executive management is enthusiastic about the possibilities of ERP.
* Executives have invested the time needed to understand how ERP will benefit the enterprise.
* Executives mandate that ERP requirements have priority over unique functional concerns.
* Top management has clearly defined the ERP Entity's business goals.
* All levels of management support the overall goals of the ERP Entity.

### Sources

* Stratman/Roth (2002): Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Competence Constructs: Two-Stage Multi-Item Scale Development and Validation. Decision Sciences, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 601-628.

### Related Scales

* Top management commitment
# Handbook of Management Scales/Employee training
## Employee training (alpha = 0.81)
### Description

Through a detailed analysis of the literature, twelve constructs of integrated quality management strategies were identified: top management commitment, customer focus, supplier quality management, design quality management, benchmarking, SPC usage, internal quality information usage, employee empowerment, employee involvement, employee training, product quality, and supplier performance. Using a survey of 371 manufacturing firms, the constructs were then empirically tested and validated. For this purpose a confirmatory factor analysis approach was used.

### Items

* Resources are available for employee quality training in our plant.
* There is almost always some kind of employee quality training going on in our plant.
* Plant managers are often involved in quality training.
* Most employees in our plant are trained to use quality problem solving techniques such as cause and effect diagrams.
* Most employees in our plant do not view each new quality seminar or training program as “just another fad”.

### Source

* Ahire et al. (1996): Development and Validation of TQM Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23-56.

### Related Scales

* Training
# Handbook of Management Scales/Example
## Example (alpha = 0.679; composite reliability = 0.701; AVE = 0.532)
### Description

24 items were developed by a team of three researchers. … Face validity was tested in an interview with four business consultants. … The scale was pretested ….

### Definition

An example is something that is representative of all such things in a group.

### Items

* This is the text for the first item. (0.81)
* This is the text for the second item. (0.75)
* This is the text for the third item. (0.69)

### Source

* [http://dx.doi.org/10.1000/182 Smith/Johnson (2011): This is a title. Journal of Examples, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 123-124.]

### Comments

The items might measure "…" rather than "example". New items could be supplemented in order to measure the missig aspect …. The items five and six are formative rather than reflective and may therefore be omitted.

### Related Scales

* Performance
* Benevolence

## References

* ↑ alpha (= Cronbach's alpha) reflects the reliability of a scale. Additional reliability measures can be listed here, if available.
* ↑ Provide the definition used in the article, if available.
* ↑ Factor loadings.
* ↑ Scales should have at least three items.
* ↑ Provide a digital object identifier (DOI) link, if available!
* ↑ In case of more than two authors: "Smith et al.".
* ↑ Preferably, the scale should have been published in a high-ranked journal!
* ↑ You can comment a scale and propose improvements.
* ↑ If the same scale or another scale with the same name has been used, just list it in the same page (new section of the page).