An investigation of relationships between communication style and leader‐member exchange

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. earned his PhD from the University of Arkansas. His specialties include communication, motivation, leadership, teambuilding and conflict management.Abstract In this research, the authors examine the relationships between findings from several potentially-related literature streams including a prescriptive body of communication theory involving supervisor-subordinate communication, contingency ideas involving use of coaching/directive vs counselling/participative leader communication styles, and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory from the management literature. LMX suggests that supervisors may afford differing treatment, and thus possibly use different communications tactics, with subordinates in higherquality exchange relationships than with those in lower-quality relationships. This literature, however, leaves unresolved whether supervisors should treat employees differently. In contrast, much of the communication literature has emphasised development of 'best' practices which, presumably, should be used with all employees. In this research the authors consider whether there are consistencies between leader communication practices and the perceived quality of the leader-member exchange. They report evidence that employees perceive differences, especially in the level of participation-related communication, depending upon whether they believe they are in a higher-or lower-quality LMX relationship. Moreover, they find weak evidence for congruence between supervisor and subordinate perceptions of the quality of the exchange and no significant evidence that similarity of the dyad influences the quality of the exchange.variations which may exist in the ways managers communicate with different employees and whether there are differences between subordinates' perceptions of higher-or lower-quality exchanges with their supervisors. The paper begins by investigating whether there are relationships between subordinates' reports of the 'quality' of their relationships with their supervisors and their perceptions about the quality of their communication with the supervisor. Next, the issue of perceptual congruence with the supervisor is considered and it is asked whether supervisors' assessment...

Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes

“…We are aware of only one study exploring LMX and feedback (Kramer, 1995), and it does not address both perspectives of the exchange. There have been more studies examining the role of communication within LMX relationships, such as studies of LMX and communication frequency (Kacmar et al, 2003), communication style (Yrle, Hartman, & Galle, 2002), gender-based differences in communications (Fairhurst, 1993), and social structure (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). Future research exploring both the quantity and quality of feedback and its effects on LMX congruence seems merited.…”

Beyond personal Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions

“…An obvious reason why LMX differentiation may affect employee reactions is because of the relative advantage afforded to individuals in high quality LMX relationships, but not to individuals in low quality LMX relationships. By definition, high quality LMX relationships involve more tangible and intangible resources being exchanged within the leader-employee dyad, for example: respect, trust, obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), affect, loyalty, professional respect (Dinesch & Liden, 1986;Liden & Maslyn, 1998), information, influence, support (Dansereau et al, 1975), voice (Yrle, Hartman & Galle, 2002), positive performance appraisals (Duarte, Goodson & Klich, 1993, 1994, and career progress (Wakabayasi, Graen, Graen & Graen, 1988). Several authors have suggested that such inequalities in reward distribution may negatively affect relations among team members (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997;Sias & Jablin, 1995); however, few empirical studies have examined the impact of LMX differentiation on employee reactions.…”

Effect of Supervisor-Subordinate Communication and Leadership Style on Organizational Commitment of Nurses in Health Care Setting

“…In traditional dyadic relationships, the supervisor could utilize different communication behaviour with different subordinates, depending on the nature of the relationship (Dansereau & Markham, 1987;Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Supervisor-subordinate communication requires the best possible communication traits, behaviors, strategies and styles (Yrle, Hartman, & Galle, 2002).…”