Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire (CRLQ ...globalbizresearch.org/Hongkong_Conference_2017_Jan2...properly those criteria values of lifelong education, such as liberty,

Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and

Social Sciences (AP17Hong Kong Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-97-6

Hong Kong-SAR. 20-22, January 2017. Paper ID: HK752

1 www.globalbizresearch.org

Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire (CRLQ) as

the Measurement Scale for the Leadership of Compassionate

Rationalism in Lifelong Education

Eun-Soo Choi,

Professor, Dept. of Lifelong Education,

Soongsil University, South Korea.

E-mail: [email protected]

Ji-Yeon Yeon,

Lecturer, Dept. of Lifelong Education,



Yong-Kook Shin,

Ph D Student, Dept. of Lifelong Education,



___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to develop the Compassionate Rationalism Leadership

Questionnaire (CRLQ) as a measurement scale for the leadership of Compassionate

Rationalism in lifelong education. As the method for the study, with reference to the related

literature review and pertinent previous study the FGI with the specialists were done to collect

measurement variables and questionnaire items for the preliminary survey. Based on the result

of the preliminary survey, 126 items were selected with which the main survey was conducted.

The exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the internal consistent reliability of CRLQ

was found to be very high and that 4 factor structures in both Rationalism and Compassionism

were drawn, respectively. In order to validate the factor structure drawn from the result of the

exploratory factor analysis, the confirmatory factor analysis with the data collected from 292

subjects was done to confirm that the level of fit indices of CRLQ model was acceptable and

supported the validity of the 8 factor structure and the hierarchical model. To conclude, CRLQ

was composed of 2 latent variables, that is, Rationalism that was composed of 4 sub-variables

which were rational contextual judgement, strategic prediction, logical problem solving, and

optimized control management, and Compassionism with 4 sub-variables of trust-based

empowerment, empathic consideration, embracing humility, and altruistic collaboration. Also,

the CRLQ was finalized with 55 items, which was confirmed to be validated and reliable.

___________________________________________________________________________

Key Words: Compassionism, Rationalism, Compasssionate rationalism Leadership

JEL Classification: C 19, G13, G 14





1. Introduction

It has been indicated that the traditional leadership approaches, such as Trait theory,

Behavior theory, or Transformational theory, have several limitations despite many advantages

when they come to lifelong education. One of their limitations is that they do not represent

properly those criteria values of lifelong education, such as liberty, equality, and equity which

undermine the interactions between adult educators and adult learners (Choi, 2011). It is

because the traditional leadership approaches cannot be a leadership paradigm for lifelong

education and here we need a new leadership paradigm. To meet this, Choi (2011) presented

his 'Compassionate Rationalism Leadership’ as an alternative leadership paradigm and tried to

conceptualize it. According to Choi (2011), ‘Compassionate Rationalism Leadership’ (CRL)

meant leadership which is based on rationalism but shows compassion depending on the

situation. CRL can give a more balanced sight between two paradigms, the hard side of strategic

and objective leadership and a soft side of leadership (Choi, 2011).

Choi (2011) suggested that for the settlement of CRL conceptualization in lifelong

education, a measurement scale was needed to develop. That is to say, in order to establish a

complete theoretical leadership concept, a site-centric measurement scale should be made based

on conceptualization. The work and its validity and reliability should be verified. It was also

noticed because from a more macroscopic aspects, the development of a measurement scale for

CRL which could gauge the level of leadership within the lifelong education context would

provide a new theoretical and field-oriented leadership framework and model in lifelong

education and corporate training in Korea. Furthermore, it would provide an empirical basis for

activating general leadership research.

The purpose of the study is to develop the Compassionate Rationalism Leadership

Questionnaire (CRLQ) as a measurement scale for the leadership of Compassionate

Rationalism in lifelong education.

2. Related Literature Review

2.1 Rationalism

It is based on several assumptions. Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical

structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and the intellect can directly

grasp these truths. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical

evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in

which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.”

2.1.1 Rationalistic Paradigm

In general, most of the future plans are made by the principle of ‘predict and control’ based

on the rationalistic paradigm. In terms of leadership education for adults, it is essential to apply





the rationalistic paradigm for improving efficiency. It is absolutely required for rationalistic

leadership based on predict-and-control planning when managing institutions.

It is based on several assumptions. Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical

structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and the intellect can directly

grasp these truths. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical

evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in

which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.”

Prediction of Leadership

In rationalistic paradigm, a leader is trying to find the best alternative mentioned above on

behalf of the entire organization. In order to do it, he predicts the shape of the most likely future

which will be the basis of assessment of various plans. It is natural that the future holds such

uncertainty that we are not able to predict exactly. However, the basic hidden premise of

prediction is that there is an expert who is much more able to predict than others, and the best

we can do is to seek for his opinions on what is to come in the future. A rationalistic lifelong

education leader will describe one aspect of the future he predicts and do his best to list

characteristics of the organizational environment in future in detail.

Statistical approach to scenario planning

The term “scenario planning” is used for the traditional analysis method of decision making

including probability measure for the future. The aim of scenario planning agrees to that of

rationalistic paradigm as it creates the single standard to review various alternatives, sets the

direction of the reason, and finally identifies the best alternative. A typical example of this

approach in the field of lifelong education would be to set the level of the highest and the lowest

in certain probability when recruiting adult learners. If the level is successfully set, then various

possible alternatives can be measured by the scenario and each weighted according to the

probability of realization. In this way, each alternative is made comprehensive assessment and

as a result, the best alternative is chosen among them.

2.1.2 Limitations of Rationalistic Paradigm

Men do not always make a perfect decision as they have not only the limited ability of

perception and intelligence but also the limited possession of values. They usually lack of

reasoning (Choi, 2011).

First, it is difficult to pursue the intrinsic values and the collective rationality at the same

time. A man himself alone can be altruistic, ethical and rational, but once he belongs to a group,

then all changes. He or/and the group is likely to be selfish, unethical, and irrational (Hogwood

and Gunn, 1984). Second. Organizations may be wrong. Actions taken by the organization are

not always reasonable or perfect (Niebuhr, 1988). Third, rationality can be changed or adjusted

depending on the context such as procedures or practice, surrounding environment and so on

(Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). Fourth, resources do matter. Time, money, and energy are





essential in order to pursue rationality. Fifth, too much is as bad as too little. Emphasizing the

rationalistic paradigm brings organization efficiency, but the undue emphasis on rationality

may lead to members’ isolation within the organization.

2.2 Compassionism

The word “compassion” originally comes from Latin and its literal meaning is ‘share the

pain with someone’. Compassion means to understand and share others’ emotions. It is a kind

of soft side of leadership behavior. It is considered quite strange for results-driven leaders who

are used to making rational decisions based on facts and statistical numbers. It is never easy to

practice this compassionism in formal organizations. These empathetic affections and actions

are required to increase openness towards tolerance of others’ pain (Zwillick, 2004).

2.2.1 Compassionate Leader

Compassionate leadership is the process through which leaders try to influence people with

the heart rather than the head. Then, how do compassionate leaders make consideration to their

followers?

“To be compassionate” suggests acting in accordance with one’s conscience or ethical

values (Raelin, 2003). It can be subjective to act by values as it is hard to find consensus on

what value to follow. Also values are usually hidden in the bottom of the motivation when

doing certain actions, therefore, to act with compassion is to be democratic and act in

cooperation with members in a community. This has something in common with lifelong

education leadership which participates in social activities with followers on the basis of

democratic ideal. Compassionate leaders do not make any decision excluding their followers’

opinions and prefer to think together, decide together, and work together and believe doing

together leads to better outcomes than doing alone.

2.2.2 Value of Compassion

What values fit in with compassionate leadership behaviors? One of them would be the

value of humility, which means that no one is inherently or fatefully superior to others. So

humility goes with respect for each individual. Leaders always keep in mind that all people

should be respected and have an inherent dignity as a human being (Raelin, 2003).

Practicing humility can implicitly contain practical value. Leaders who practice humility

soon realize that they are not the only person who has good ideas. They are trying to receive

help from the community they belong to and find solutions for all.

Trust is another important value in compassionate leadership. From the perspective of the

organization, trust lies in the middle of a continuum made between faith and confidence. To

trust someone’s leadership in the organization means that followers have emotional acceptance

of their leader’s decision even in the absence of substantial evidence. In other words, even

though there is not enough evidence, followers accept the leader’s decision and behaviors, and

that we call, trust.





There are three ways for compassionate leaders to obtain trust from their followers;

demonstrate their competencies, show their purity, and treat followers with respect (Raelin,

2003).

2.2.3 Behaviors of Compassionate Value

If someone pursues compassionate leadership, he or she must be ready to be assessed by his

values and behaviors and get feedback from it. That means, he should be willing to publicly

express his opinions, emotion, inherent values, basic principles and final decision.

What attributes of a compassionate leader should we consider? A compassionate leader is

someone who communicates openly. He is openly talking and sharing his thoughts and feelings

with other members. Just as important, he asks sincere questions and listens with interest and

intention. Within companies and organizations, leaders encourage an open dialogue among

teams and employees (Zust, 2008).

A compassionate leader is flexible. The leader who is willing to set aside rules and

procedures for the greater good demonstrates his or her human side. When he takes the high

road with employees, he never forgets, and as a result, he is able to develop more loyal

employees, people who want to work for him because he cares. He doesn't just pay lip service

to a cause; he makes a promise and keeps it. By doing so he shows that he genuinely cares about

his followers’ well-being.

A compassionate leader is not afraid to show emotion. People believe that if we show our

emotions in a business environment, people will think we are weak. That perception is

changing. We now know that the leader who is not afraid to show emotion has greater depth of

character and is not swayed by public opinion of what is politically correct behavior.

A compassionate leader leads by example. The actions of a leader who tries to be

compassionate on the outside but does it more for winning votes or stroking his or her

constituents is disingenuous. Nothing does more to build a person's character than getting down

into the trenches in an hour of need. A leader is not someone who we idolize because of position,

status or income but rather someone who genuinely, and humbly, puts others first.

A compassionate leader does not want to control other people in order to increase his self-

esteem. He also does not want people to have respect for him. What he cares about is to help

people improve to a higher level and to help the entire organization. He recognizes each

member as someone who has potential to contribute to the organization regardless of position

or status.

A compassionate leader forms the compassionate community which accepts diversity of

opinion. Even though an opinion may not agree with the existing mental model or practice, he

does accept it. Empowering lifelong education members can assist in forming a compassionate

community. Through empowerment leadership, members can disclose their competencies and

get a sense of accomplishment.





2.2.4 Possibilities and Limitations of Compassionism

Is there a place for the compassionate leader in today's heartless organization climate? Yes.

The compassionate leader brings a sense of balance and a fresh approach to doing business in

the organization. In this new millennium, we may find that those who exhibit the characteristics

of a compassionate leader will fare better in handling crises and communicating more

effectively in any economic, educational and social climate (Raelin, 2003).

2.3 Compassionate Rationalism

Compassionate rationalism is a new term combining compassionism with rationalism. It is

part of an effort to enhance both aspects and at the same time to compensate for their limitations.

Basically, rationalistic leadership paradigm takes responsibility for the main part and

compassionate leadership paradigm the rest. On the basis of rationalism, compassionate

rationalism includes compassion depending on the situation (Choi, 2011).

In general, a leader has more power and control than his followers, so he is responsible for

sensitively reacting how his behaviors can influence them. A compassionate rationalistic leader

in the field of lifelong education should increase efficiency and effectiveness in the overall

situation of organizational management and at the same time he should try to realize the values

that lifelong education pursues – ethics, equality, and fairness and so on – by standing by his

followers with dignity and respect. A compassionate rationalistic leader should help his

followers to overcome the difficulties and conflicts they face personally. Through this process,

the relationship between a leader and followers results in not only increasing the level of

morality and equality from both sides but also implementing the effectiveness of the

organization.

Someone may suggest rationalistic compassionism rather than compassionate rationalism.

It is possible, too, if the priority of the two leadership paradigms is to change. In this case,

compassionate leadership paradigm takes care of the main part and rationalistic leadership

paradigm the rest. But compassionate rationalistic leadership is believed to be more appropriate

when it comes to lifelong education leadership (Choi, 2011). That is because lifelong education

leadership should include administrative management, team leadership and supervisory

leadership, all of which are required to be based on rationalism (Choi, 2011).

Moreover, in order to lead lifelong education effectively, lifelong education leaders

basically need to show the hard side of rationalistic and strategic leadership, but at the same

time, they should also try to make up for the weak points of rationalism by expressing soft

leadership when required. That’s what makes leaders be effective lifelong education

professionals.

To conclude, compassionate rationalism lies in two paradigms. If it keeps a balanced view

towards both paradigms and keeps pursuing efficiency, equality, and equity, then it will be a

fascinating new leadership paradigm in the field of lifelong education.





3. Methodology

3.1 Participants

In this study, 738 respondents’ survey replies were retrieved from on/off-line survey

targeting adults over age 20. Among these replies, unreliable or half-hearted responses were

excluded and the final 692 responses were used for analysis. Looking into the demographical

characteristics of survey respondents whose replies were used for analysis, out of the total 692

respondents, there are 346 male(50%) and 346 female(50%). The gender ratio in the sample

group is the same. By age group, respondents in their 20s are 96(13.9%), in their 30s are

155(22.4%), in their 40s are 208(30.1%), in their 50s are 220(31.8%) and over age 60 are

12(1.8%).

3.2 Procedures

In this study, first by analyzing previous studies, we abstracted the concept and sub-factors

related with Compassionate Rationalism. Based on these results we conducted FGI (Focus

Group Interview) with 15 doctorate or equivalent researchers who specialize in Leadership and

Lifelong education. Through the FGI we abstracted the specific behaviors and traits

corresponding with the concept of Rationalism Leadership and Compassionism Leadership.

And then we explored further ‘The factors and behavior characteristics of Rational leadership

and Compassionate leadership’. The summary of ‘Factors of Compassionate Rationalism

Leadership’ abstracted by FGI is suggested in the ‘Table 2’. It shows the factors categorized

according by the level of classification.

We considered both the conclusion of previous study for developing preliminary questions

and the conclusion of FGI together and determined factors derived from both conclusions,

keeping the overlap to a minimum. And then we developed preliminary questionnaire comprise

selected factors. In that questionnaire, Rationalism Leadership factors consist of such

hypothetical sub constructs as Strategic thinking, Select and concentration,

Table 1: Participants

Classification Number (%) Total

Gender Male 346(50%)

692(100%)

female 346(50%)

Age

20s 96(13.9%)

30s 155(22.4%)

40s 208(30.1%)

50s 220(31.8%)

Over 60 12(1.8%)





Planning/Organizing, Resolution, Result-oriented, etc. and Compassionism Leadership factors

consist of such hypothetical sub constructs as Respecting others, Pursuit of autonomy,

Cooperation, flexibility, Self-acceptance, Sympathy, Leading by example, Spirit of self-

sacrifice, Responsiveness to others, Consideration for others, etc.

We developed items based on each hypothetical factor and through three time’s checking

we removed or modified items that have overlap with others in meaning and items that are

improper contextually or unclear in meaning. As a result, we invented 12 factors and 138

preliminary items measuring Rationalism Leadership and 12 factors and 121 preliminary items

measuring Compassionism Leadership. Based on this, we developed ‘Compassionate

Rationalism Leadership’ preliminary review assessment instrument. This instrument has 259

items that are assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale rating (from 1: strongly disagree to 5:

strongly agree).

From October to December 2013, we preliminarily surveyed 267 adults. We analyzed the

responses to 259 items, using descriptive statistics and dropped extreme items of which the

mean is more than 4.0. And through exploratory factor analysis we excluded items that have

little in common(less than 3.0) and items of which factor scores are low(less than 4) or shows

redundancy. And finally 126 items were invented.

Relying on the items derived from preliminary review, we conducted main survey of 738

adults from Feb. to Apr. 2014. In order to prevent order effect, the questionnaire was designed

in two different forms changing the order of items measuring RL and items measuring CL.

Questionnaire were delivered in person or distributed and retrieved by on-line.





Table 2: Summary of Factors Abstracted by FGI

Large

classification

Middle

classification Small classification

Rationalism

Strategic thinking Planning ability, Organizing ability, Strategy as a mean,

Establishing goal-oriented strategy

Effectiveness Maximizing effectiveness, Select and concentration,

Division of labor, Calculating efficiency

Considering

reality

Problem recognition and solution, Grasping the problem

wholly, Situation analysis, SWOT analysis

Rational thinking

Rational decision making, Rational standard setting,

Reasonable support, Rational data collection and

utilization

Objectiveness

Probabilistic prediction, Acceptance of various opinions,

Official impersonality, Sensible behavior,

Distinction between public and private affairs

Predictive ability Prediction and control, Estimate of future, Optimization,

Finding optimum alternative and decision making

Formal

relationship

Cooperation, Pursuing scientific management,

Authority, Driving force, Stability of transactional

relationship

Compassionism

Receptive attitude Accepting criticism, Emotional acceptance, Admitting

variety, Empathy, Recognition of self and others

Humanistic

values

Consideration, Respecting dignity, Humility, Respecting

Individuality, Genuineness

Supporting

growth

Supporting self-fulfillment, Consideration and welfare,

Recognition of potential, Broaden benefits,

Empowerment, Trust, Granting autonomy

Conscientious

behavior Ethicality, Conscience, Morality

Open

communication

Openness, Altruism, Organization-oriented,

Cooperative problem solving, Democratic attitude

Genial behavior Gentle behaviors, Amicable attitude, Emotional

behavior, Pain-sharing

Professionalism Supporting /passing on expertise, Sharing information,

Compensating the defect





3.3 Statistical Analysis

SPSS 19.0 and AMOS 18.0 were used to analyze the collected data. In order to determine

the degree of independence of 8 domains in both dimensions (RL, CL), we performed

exploratory factor analysis, using Varimax evolving principal component analysis’ and in order

to determine the structure of instrument we performed confirmatory factor analysis. In order to

verify reliability of the instrument used for this study, we checked the internal consistency using

Cronbach Alpha Coefficient.

4. Results

4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

First, the EFA results of each dimension were as follows. The data of 400 people from a

sample of 692 people were used for EFA. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett's

test of sphericity were done to verify validity and goodness of item configuration on sub-factors

of dimensions. The results were shown in <Table 3>. KMO measure investigated partial

correlation between variables and measured samples of adequacy which indicated whether the

number of factors and data used in factor analysis were proper. The value of KMO measure of

‘Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire’ (CRLQ) was .941. The value of chi-

square approximation in Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant as 126999.269(df=1485).

Therefore, item setting for factor analysis were proper.

Table 3: KMO Measure and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity of CRLQ

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure .941

Bartlett's test of sphericity

chi-square approximation 12699.269

df 1485

p .000

In this study, the principal component analysis and the Varimax rotation for each dimension

were conducted in order to investigate the degree of independence of the eight sub-factors of

two dimensions and to find the inherent structure between the variables. In EFA, factors were

extracted by the principal component analysis, with the standards of the eigenvalues 1 (Kaiser,

1960) applied for the number of factors, and The Scree test (Cattell, 1966) was referenced. As

the result of analysis, the eigenvalues of all of the factors were greater than one, and the total

variance explained by eight factors was shown as 59.2%. Factor one had the most explanatory

amount at 10.360% and factor 8 was analyzed as having the fewest amount of explanation at

5.612%. The Eight-factor structure appeared to be most interpretable. The EFA results of

CRLQ are shown in <Table 4>.

Table 4: The EFA Results of CRLQ(N=400)

Name of Factor F1 F2 F3 F4 h2





Logical problem-solving

.761 .732

.760 .698

.727 .656

.717 .715

.695 .653

.666 .620

.659 .610

.612 .595

Altruistic cooperation

.741 .689

.676 .557

.648 .576

.631 .525

.623 .556

.566 .545

.511 .503

.480 .467

.459 .492

Optimal administrative

control

.761 .760

.716 .647

.713 .689

.710 .685

.704 .661

.559 .497

.472 .531

Trust-based Empowerment

.733 .631

.689 .620

.674 .663

.656 .585

.613 .557

.604 .596

.582 .588

Eigenvalue 17.975 3.400 2.580 2.184

% of variance 10.360 8.321 7.950 7.461

cumulative % 10.360 18.681 26.631 34.091





(continued)

Name of Factor F5 F6 F7 F8 h2

Rational estimate of the

situation

.777 .734

.733 .647

.696 .651

.636 .565

.562 .552

.553 .638

Strategic predictions

.638 .542

.624 .573

.583 .529

.583 .491

.552 .497

.545 .533

.540 .477

Tolerant humility

.701 .620

.693 .617

.680 .559

.520 .542

.451 .420

.438 .449

Empathic consideration

.778 .718

.758 .713

.716 .610

.547 .470

.404 .515

Eigenvalue 1.826 1.676 1.518 1.382

% of variance 6.730 6.723 6.009 5.612

cumulative % 40.821 47.545 53.554 59.166

Items of this factor loadings were lower than .40 and items in the cross loading with other

variables were preferentially deleted from 126 items used in the main survey. In addition, items

which had low interpretability of factors or measured the same meaning and concepts were

reviewed and finally 55 items were selected.





4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the factor structure resulted from the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis on the

final CRLQ was performed using AMOS 18.0. The remaining 292 data which were not used

for EFA were analyzed (See <Table 5>). Items of rationalism and compassionism leadership

sub-factors were parceled for CFA. Item parceling was done because of the advantage of the

smaller parameters was estimated. The more stable the result, the more contrasting the case

(Bandalos, 2002).

Table 5: CFA Fit Index (n=292)

Fit index χ² df p

absolute fit index relative fit index

GFI AGFI RMSEA TLI NFI CFI

One-factor

model 1999.38 252 .000 .577 .497 .154 .586 .592 .622

Two-factor

model 1493.91 251 .000 .670 .606 .130 .704 .695 .731

Eight-factor

model 474.58 224 .000 .879 .839 .062 .933 .903 .946

Hierarchical

model 537.52 243 .000 .863 .831 .065 .928 .890 .936

Although χ² as a CFA result was generally the most representative and absolute index fit, it was

affected by the size of the sample. Therefore, other indices should be considered together even if χ² shows

statistical significance. The three indices were presented respectively as absolute fit indices and relative

fit indices. Absolute fit index was an absolute evaluation of the theoretical model itself instead of a

relative evaluation comparing theoretical model's fitness with other model's. Relative fit index showed

how this theoretical model described relatively well compared to the inappropriate models (Lee & Im,

2006).

Among the absolute fit indices on the integrated hierarchical model of CRLQ, GFI (goodness of fit

index) was .863 and AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index) was .831, as shown on <Table 5>. The result

that these two indices were respectively more than .8 met the acceptance criteria of a good fit. Similarly,

it showed a RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) value of 0.065, a result of an acceptable

level. Acceptance criteria of the RMSEA value were as follows: RMSEA <.05 meant a good fit, RMSEA

<.08 meant an acceptable fit, and RMSEA <.10 meant outside the acceptable range of fitness (Browne

& Cudeck, 1993). And among the relative fit indices on the hierarchical model, TLI (Turker Lewis index)

was .928, NFI (Normed fit index) was .890, and CFI (Comparative fit index) was .936. The closer to 1

these indices were, the better the model fit was, and if the indices were more than .8, the model fit was

regarded as acceptable (Kline, 1998). Accordingly, the results of CFA could be confirmed from

comprehensive consideration of all fit indices.





CFA fit indices are presented in <Table 5>, according to the one-factor model, the two-factor model,

the 8-factor model, and the hierarchical model. The one factor model is single dimensional one as CRL

and the two-factor model was analyzed by two factors - rationalism leadership and compassionism

leadership. As a result, the optimal model was the eight -factor structure based on acceptable multifaceted

fit indices evaluation. Also in the hierarchical structure model, the overall fit indices met the acceptance

criteria. Therefore the validity of the integrated hierarchical model consisted of four factors of rationalism

paradigm and four factors of compassionate paradigm was ensured. [Figure 1] presented the structural

model of CRL. That the correlation between rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm in

[Figure 1] appears to be slightly a higher level of .79 might imply that two kinds of leaderships could

converge on one concept as CRL and complement each other in an integrated leadership even though

they were distinguishable contradictory concepts and their focuses were different.

Figure 1: Hierarchical Estimate Model of Compassionate Rationalism Leadership

4.3 Correlation between Factors

The results of correlation analysis between CRL sub-factors can be seen in <Table 6>. All

correlations between the eight sub-factors were significant at the p=.001 level. Looking at the

correlation coefficient between those factors, most showed high correlations of more than .4

except for the correlation coefficients between trust-based empowerment and logical problem-

solving, and between logical problem-solving and tolerant humility. Since sub-factors showed





high correlations at the appropriate level, they appeared to be suitable as measuring constructs

of CRL.

Table 6: Correlations between CRL Sub-factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rational estimate

of the situation 1

Strategic

predictions .571*** 1

Logical problem-

solving .511*** .523*** 1

Optimal

administrative

control

.598*** .606*** .410*** 1

Trust-based

empowerment .471*** .469*** .368*** .495*** 1

Empathic

consideration .494*** .534*** .465*** .500*** .594*** 1

Tolerant humility .454*** .513*** .379*** .547*** .640*** .704*** 1

Altruistic

cooperation .409*** .462*** .455*** .459*** .726*** .572*** .636*** 1

M 3.67 3.84 3.72 3.78 3.92 3.93 3.89 3.93

SD .614 .555 .615 .512 .562 .556 .534 .532

4.4 Reliability Analysis

Cronbach's ɑ, an internal consistency reliability was calculated to confirm the reliability of

CRLQ, and the results are shown in <Table 7>.

Table 7: Reliability of CRLQ

Dimension Sub-factors Number of

items Cronbach’s ɑ

Rationalism

Rational estimate of

the situation 6 .836

.937 Strategic

predictions 7 .802

Logical problem-

solving 8 .923





Optimal

administrative

control

7 .889

Compassioism

Trust-based

empowerment 7 .864

.934

Empathic

consideration 5 .823

Tolerant humility 6 .795

Altruistic

cooperation 9 .891

Total 55 .959

The total reliability of CRLQ was very high at .959, and each dimension also showed high

reliability at .937 of rationalism paradigm and .934 of compassionism paradigm. Reliabilities

of the eight sub-factors were at a satisfactory level in the range of .795 ~ .923.

4.5 Definition of Structuring Factors

The definitions of sub-factors of rationalism and compassionism are described as seen in

<Table 8>, each of which implies of meaning of questions asking the level of rationalism or

compassionism.





4.6 Final Measurement Scale of Comapassionate Rationalism Leadership

CRLQ IS composed of 2 latent variables, that is, Rationalism that is composed of 4

sub-variables which were rational contextual judgement, strategic prediction, logical

problem solving, and optimized control management, and Compassionism with 4 sub-

variables of trust-based empowerment, empathic consideration, embracing humility,

and altruistic collaboration. Also, the CRLQ is finalized with 55 items, which is

confirmed to be validated and reliable, as shown in Table 9.

Table 8: Definition of Structuring Factors of Compassionate Rationalism Leadership

dimension Sub-factors definition

Rationalism

Rational

estimate of the

situation

When a crucial decision making is necessary based on rational

thinking, I promptly determine the most efficient alternative

and direction to response the situation.

Strategic

predictions

I see the problem from a long-term perspective and make

elaborate predictions about uncertain future and set attainable

and strategic goals by select and concentration.

Logical

problem-solving

I analyze the situation faced and issues on work from various

angles in different ways and I reasonably determine the cause

and core of problems and come up with solutions for solving

problems after logically grasping the contextual meaning.

Optimal

administrative

control

By managing or maintaining various human/material resources

in best conditions, I maximize the efficiency and raise the

quality of performance.

Compassionism

Empower based

on trust

Based on truthful and trustful relationship with members,

providing members with various opportunities and proper

authority, I help them to feel a sense of accomplishment.

Empathic

consideration

I am much interested in other person’s emotions and I try to

grasp closely his state of mind and I consider his situation

putting myself in his shoes.

Tolerant

humility

Having reflective perspectives on my thoughts and behaviors I

am tolerant of critical feedback from others with modesty and I

listen to various opinions from others and accept it in a

positive manner.

Altruistic

cooperation

I take self-giving actions for others and willingly help members

providing what they need and lead them by example even if

there is no benefit to me.





Table 9: Final Composition of CRLQ

dimension Leadership Sub-factors Question Numbers # of

Questions

Rationalism

Rational estimate of the

situation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 6

Strategic predictions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 7

Logical problem-solving 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21 8

Optimal administrative

control 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 7

Compassionism

Empower based on trust 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 7

Empathic consideration 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 5

Tolerant humility 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 6

Altruistic cooperation 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 55 9

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement tool which can measure the adults'

CRL to ensure the validity of the measurement tool. For this research purpose, the factors that

make up the concepts of CRL were derived through previous researches and FGI. As a result,

259 preliminary items were developed according to these factors. On the basis of descriptive

statistics and EFA conducted on the pilot test data, 126 items were selected for the main survey.

The main survey was conducted online and offline among 738 adults. Any detectable

insincere responses were excluded and the data of 692 people were finally used in this analysis.

As the result of EFA, the eight-factor structure showed the highest interpretability, which had

four factors of rationalism paradigm dimension (logical problem-solving, optimal

administrative control, rational estimate of the situation, and strategic predictions) and four

factors of compassionate paradigm dimension (altruistic cooperation, trust-based

empowerment, tolerant humility, and empathic consideration). The eigenvalues of all eight

factor were above 1, and they showed cumulative explanation of about 59%. The final 55 items

were derived. The coefficient factor of which were more than .40. To confirm the factor

structure following the results of EFA, CFA was conducted by AMOS 18.0 on 292 data except

for the data used in EFA. As the results of analysis, fit indices of eight factor structure and

hierarchical model structure met the acceptance criteria, compared to base models (one factor





and two factors). Through considering fit indices comprehensively, the results of EFA could be

reconfirmed. In conclusion, the results of the first research question on constructs and items of

CRLQ were that constructs could be divided into two big dimensions (rationalism paradigm

and compassionate paradigm) with four sub-factors respectively and a total of 55 items. The

measuring tool was a Likert 5-point scale and was configured to self-evaluate, targeting adults.

As results of the second research question of reliability and validity on CRLQ, the total

reliability and reliabilities of sub-factors were all found to be at satisfactory levels, and validity

were also secured since EFA and CFA showed the fitness of CRL measuring model. This study

has the following significance: First, this study clearly defines the concept of CRL as a unified

one from two leadership points of view- rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm,

based on Choi (2011) and developed the measuring tool of CRL, which has a major

significance. Discrimination and convenience of measuring leadership were also tested by

ensuring that the appropriate number of items are used. Second, for the leaders playing pivotal

roles in organizations and institutions, CRLQ confirmed which dimensional leadership between

rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm showed strength or weakness by self-

evaluation. The respective sub-factors also provided a variety of specific information on their

own leadership. Third, this study could be utilized as the educational content that could increase

the effectiveness of leadership according to the different situations faced by leaders, and

orienting to the balance of two dimensions (rationalism paradigm and compassionate paradigm)

with sub-factors of CRL. Fourth, the development of CRLQ raised the validity of the research

methods by developing it in a parallel with the various methods of previous research study,

FGI, and survey. Finally, this study would have continuous expansion as a new field of research

in lifelong education and lifelong education leadership area and provide leading data as a

springboard for these studies, which are meaningful.

In accordance with the results, some suggestions were presented as follows: First, there

could still be limits on generalization even though this study included adults of different ages

as research subjects. Complementing the construct and measuring items through ongoing

validation study was needed for ensuring the reliability and validity as stable. There was also a

need for researches with demographic variables such as age, sex, and type of organization

(commercial/non-profit, corporation/public institutions, etc.). In the situation where

quantitative researches on CRL were nonexistent, subsequent studies should be done, which

could be compared to the results on different research subjects and contexts. Second, it was

expected that the development of systematic training and coaching programs that could help

leaders of organizations using CRLQ developed in this study would contribute to strengthen

practical lifelong education leadership competence. It was needed to carry out this measure to

leaders, explain how to utilize it on site, and help them with ongoing training and coaching





programs. In addition, future research is also needed concerning the effectiveness of the

program after conducting CRL training program.

References

Bandalos, D. L., 2002, The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in

structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78-102.

Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R., 1989, Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multi-

variate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

Cattell, R. B., 1996, The scree test for the number of factors. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 1(1), 245-

276.

Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R., 1989, Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.

Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

Choi, E. S., 2011, Development of measurement scale for the leadership of compassionate rationalism in

lifelong. Andragogy Today, 14(3), 61-85.

Donadlson, 1992, Reconfiguring the leadership envelope: teaching and administration. In P. J. Edelson(Ed.),

Rethinking leadership in adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hogwood, B. W. and Gunn, L. A., 1984, Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press.

Mintzberg, H., 1990, The design school reconsidering the basic premises of strategic Management. Strategic

Management Journal, 11, 171-195.

Niebuhr, R., 1988, Moral man and immoral society, (Byungsub Lee Trans.). Seoul: Modern Thought Co.

Raelin, J. A., 2003, Creating leaderful organizations. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koeler Publishers, Inc.

Zust, C. W., 2008, The compassionate leader. http://www.emergingleader.com/article19.shtml.

Zwillick, D., 2004, Solipsism, compassionism and freedom. International Journal of Humanities and Peace,

20(1). 51-55.





CRLQ (Compassi0onate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire)

Number Question

1 I can make a prompt decision, in the face of uncertainties and insufficient information.

2 I deal with a dangerous situation with agility without embarrassment.

3 I take prompt action composedly when unexpected things happen.

4 I am careful in performing jobs, and besides I take bold action on the changes in the situation.

5 I don’t hesitate to decide what to do and put them in action.

6 I can make the best decision, in the situation when the standard is ambiguous and

reference data is insufficient.

7 After full consideration of current human and material resources, I set an attainable

goal within its circle.

8 I elaborately anticipate how interior and exterior circumstances would go and respond

to it.

9 I take a long-term view in everything I do.

10 I consider not only short term outcome but also future impact.

11 I always bear the possibility in mind that unexpected things could happen.

12 When I set medium and long-term goals, I make a plan considering a wide variety of

variables.

13 I make a decision examining thoroughly realistic possibility rather than seek ideal goals.

14 I come up with specific solutions through investigating the cause of a complex problem.

15 Grasping the current situation, I detect various influence factors and understand exactly the causal

relationships among them.

16 Analyzing a problem situation, I clarify the cause and predict obstacles ahead.

17 I can identify the cause of problems that happened more precisely than people around

me.





18 I am good at getting the core of something and spotting problems easily overlooked.

19 I am good at finding out the causes of a difficult situation and the clues to solve a

difficult problem.

20 Faced with a complex problem, I find out key information.

21 I am good at grasping the core and context of a knotty problem and finding a solution.

22 To maximize work efficiency, I classify or integrate tasks.

23 I consider each member’s traits and assign to him a task where he can display all his

ability.

24 I increase work efficiency assigning proper resources to actual work.

25 I increase work efficiency using proper combinations of personnel and jobs, through the

whole process of doing work.

26 I check frequently internal/external maximum resources and personnel that are available

in actual work.

27 I properly assign members tasks and delegate authority to them that matches individual

capabilities.

28 I maximize work efficiency by allocating resources appropriately.

29 I help members to complete their tasks on their own

30 I grant proper autonomy and responsibility to the person in actual charge.

31 I am good at understanding private capabilities and traits of each member and

encourage him to achieve results on his own.

32 I give members autonomy in order that they can complete their work.

33 I establish clear lines of authority and responsibility where members can work

autonomously.

34 I actively provide members with opportunities to experience new tasks.

35 I help members to display their ability on their own and to feel a sense of

accomplishment.

36 I have a conversation with other person, reading his face and fully understanding his

emotions.

37 I grasp closely other person’s current situation and his state of mind.





38 I consider what impact my words and actions are going to have on others.

39 I consider other person’s situation, giving them work instructions.

40 I conduct myself, considering other person’s position rather than my position.

41 I understand and accept various working and behavior styles of people.

42 I don’t always think that my decisions and methods are right.

43 I always try to take some time to look back at myself or reflect on myself.

44 I humbly accept critical feedbacks on my values or actions.

45 I try to accept negative feedback from others positively.

46 I spend lots of time having a conversation with members to understand them more.

47 I work faithfully even if there is no strict monitoring or clear instruction.

48 In our organization, I take an active interest in solving member’s problems.

49 I fulfill my duties diligently without caring about what other people think of me.

50 I take the lead by doing what other people don’t like to do.

51 Finishing my jobs though, I willingly help others to complete their work.

52 I actively help a coworker who has work-related difficulties, not turning my back on him.

53 I willingly help my colleague in his work even if there is no benefit.

54 I gladly help my colleague when he faces the problem that is too hard for him to solve

alone.

55 I feel sorry for people in trouble and look for some way to help them.

Documents

Compassionate Rationalism Leadership Questionnaire (CRLQ ...globalbizresearch.org/Hongkong_Conference_2017_Jan2...properly those criteria values of lifelong education, such as liberty,