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

Hooper, Danica; Martin, Robin

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002

Cited by 253 publications

(329 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

299

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Leader-member exchange theory suggests that leaders develop different (unique) exchange relationships with each of their subordinates (Hooper & Martin, 2008). The approach is different from traditional leadership theories that suggest that leaders use an average leadership style with all subordinates (Martin et al, 2005).…”

Section: Dyadic Relationships Between Leaders and Subordinatesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Do Low-quality Leader-Member Relationships Matter for Subordinates? Evidence from Three Samples on the Validity of the Norwegian LMX Scale

Furunes

Mykletun

Einarsen

et al. 2015

NJWLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Dyadic Relationships Between Leaders and Subordinatesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Do Low-quality Leader-Member Relationships Matter for Subordinates? Evidence from Three Samples on the Validity of the Norwegian LMX Scale

Furunes

Mykletun

Einarsen

et al. 2015

NJWLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted earlier, trust in a leader arises from the dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower, which is related to the notion of LMX (Bower et al, 2000). Recent studies indicate that the degree of differentiation in LMX can vary across leaders such that some leaders establish similar relationships among their followers while others can differ substantially in their relationships with their followers (e.g., Boies & Howell, 2006;Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006;Hooper & Martin, 2008). To the extent that leaders are high on average LMX and concern for the team members, they should treat team members similarly and facilitate the development of the consensus in trust in leaders among members.…”

Section: Leadership Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Fulmer

2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing organizational research has demonstrated that team members' trust in leaders is positively related to a team's bottom-line outcomes. However, little is known about how collective trust in leaders develops among team members. To address this gap, the present study examines the effects of multiple emergent processes on the extent to which team members exhibit consensus in trust in their leader. In particular, it was proposed that the most important factors for the emergence, and the degree of consensus, of collective trust in leaders should have the same referent target as the collective construct (i.e., the leader) and concern behaviors that involve interactions between the leader and team members. Thus, the leader behavior and interactions variables of showing concern, leading by example, and monitoring were expected to exert stronger influence on the consensus in trust in leaders than leader attributes (ability and integrity) and team factors (open communication and demographic diversity). Further, the degree of consensus in trust in leaders was predicted to have both an independent and interaction effect with the mean level of trust in leaders in influencing team performance and voice behavior. Three waves of survey data were collected from teams with new leadership in a large academic military institution. Data from 719 team members from 105 teams were used to test these predictions by analyzing consensus concurrently and changes in consensus over time.The results generally supported the relative importance of leader showing concern and leading by example on the degree of consensus in trust in leaders in the concurrent model. For changes in consensus, leading by example was particularly important. In addition, while consensus was not independently related to the team performance and voice behaviors, it interacted with the mean level in influencing the outcomes in both the concurrent and change models. Taken together, the findings suggest that some leader behaviors are important for the development of collective trust or consensus in trust in leaders, and further suggest that consensus can act as a boundary condition for the effect of the mean level of trust in leaders on team outcomes. By focusing on the consensus in trust in leaders, this research begins to shed light on how consensus in trust develops among team members with respect to their leader and has implications for understanding trust, leadership, and emergence.

show abstract

“…Recent studies indicate that the within-group variance of LMX levels in a given unit, called LMX differentiation, has potential to affect employees above and beyond the effects of dyad-level LMX (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009;Hooper & Martin, 2008;Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). LMX differentiation per se is a natural process of management, because it in part stems from ordinary role differentiations (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).…”

Section: Lmx Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, this psychological mechanism should affect not only the employees with a low-LMX status but also those with a high-LMX status, because all employees belonging to the same work group are, by definition, exposed to the same level of the LMX differentiation. It stands to reason that overly large LMX differentiation works to deter employee "voice" behavior above and beyond the effects of individual-level factors, via its impact on the related psychological factors (Ashford et al, 2009;Detert & Burris, 2007;Hooper & Martin, 2008). Hence, the following hypothesis: …”

Section: Lmx Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voicing Is Costly, but Team Can Change That: A Three-Wave Study on Employee “Voice” through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Matsunaga

2016

MOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the rich literature on employee "voice"-an organizational behavior of speaking up with intentions to improve one's work processes-the underlying structure that integrates the effects of related factors has yet to be explored. In addition, previous studies almost exclusively focus on whether organizational members speak up, leaving the issue of how they communicate their "voice" unattended. To address those limitations, this study examined three-wave longitudinal data collected from 539 full-timers working at 106 enterprises in Japan, using multi-level structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) and latent profile analyses (LPA). The ML-SEM results indicated that: (a) perceived cost-benefit balances and subjective norms (but not communication efficacy), as well as leader-member exchange (LMX), are associated with "voice" intentions; (b) LMX quality's effects are partially mediated via psychological factors; and (c) group-level LMX differentiation added to the model's explanatory power above and beyond the individual-level predictors. Additionally, LPA detected five distinct patterns of employee "voice" communication (or lack thereof). Those analyses revealed that direct communication is rather atypical, and many individuals utilize indirect strategies, such as only disclosing parts of their opinions first to test the water or telling colleagues who they think will eventually convey revealed ideas to leaders.

show abstract

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

Cited by 253 publications

References 58 publications

Do Low-quality Leader-Member Relationships Matter for Subordinates? Evidence from Three Samples on the Validity of the Norwegian LMX Scale

Do Low-quality Leader-Member Relationships Matter for Subordinates? Evidence from Three Samples on the Validity of the Norwegian LMX Scale

Getting on the Same Page: How Leaders Build Trust Consensus in Teams and Its Consequences

Voicing Is Costly, but Team Can Change That: A Three-Wave Study on Employee “Voice” through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About