How Leader–member Exchange Influences Effective Work Behaviors: Social Exchange and Internal–external Efficacy Perspectives

Abstract

In this article, we propose and test an integrative theory of leader–member exchange (LMX) that extends our understanding of the mechanisms affecting LMX and important organizational outcomes. We argue that LMX enhances job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) through 2 sets of processes. As a result of a social exchange process, high LMX managers encourage reciprocal obligations. These obligations are manifested as subordinate commitment to their supervisors. This commitment, in turn, prompts more OCBs and higher job performance. Through a second process, high LMX supervisors enhance their subordinates’ self‐efficacy and means efficacy, thereby improving job performance. Results of a field study support our predictions. Theoretical and practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

“…An SLMX relationship aligns well with traditional conceptualizations and measures used in LMX research (Walumbwa, et al, 2011). Therefore, and based on meta-analytical findings, SLMX should be positively related to work and contextual performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997;Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).…”

“…Social LMX relationships, on the one hand, are characterized by a long-term orientation, where the exchanges between leaders and followers are ongoing and based on f eelings of diffuse obligation, and less in need of an immediate "pay off" (Blau, 1964;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001;Shore, et al, 2006;Walumbwa, et al, 2011). The emphasis is on socio-emotional aspects of exchanges, such as give and take and being taken care of, and the exchange partners trust that the other partner will reciprocate.…”

“…One of two dominating theories used to explain the relationship between LMX and effective work behaviors is social exchange theory (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000;Walumbwa, et al, 2011;Wayne, et al, 1997;Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). Social exchange theory posits that LMX exerts its benefits by creating social exchange relationships between leaders and subordinates.…”

“…Social exchange theory posits that LMX exerts its benefits by creating social exchange relationships between leaders and subordinates. Social exchange theory, with its emphasis on reciprocation or the felt obligation to reciprocate, can to a large extent explain why workers are motivated to exert effort on behalf of their organizations or their supervisors (Walumbwa, et al, 2011).…”

“…In contrast, social, relational, and in-group are qualities associated with highquality relationships were long-term generalized reciprocity is the norm (Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington, 2009;Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Even though much LMX research relies on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011), it has still not taken into account that social and economic exchanges are exchanges with different qualities, despite several calls for research that explicitly incorporates both transactional and transformational processes (Gerstner & Day, 1997;Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). According to Sparrow and Liden (1997, p.: 524), one particular challenge with respect to applying social exchange theory to LMX research is that "...the dimensions of actual exchange behavior that differentiate economic from social exchange have not been specified in a way that facilitates empirical verification.…”