Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale

Bernerth, Jeremy B.; Armenakis, Achilles A.; Feild, Hubert S.; Giles, William F.; Walker, H. Jack

doi:10.1002/job.443

Cited by 188 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When comparing the items in our scale with more traditional measures, however, they are quite similar, especially the measures that have been developed on the basis of social exchange theory (e.g. Bernerth, et al, 2007). In addition, the direction and magnitude of the relationships between SLMX and our dependent Economic and Social LMX 20 variables do not deviate from findings obtained with commonly used measures.…”

Section: Limitations Research Directions and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…These exchange relationships are assumed to fall on a continuum from low-quality transactional-based relationships involving little more than what is stipulated in the employment contract, to more encompassing highquality relationships involving the exchange of resources and support based on trust, mutual liking, and respect (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2007;Liden & Graen, 1980). Qualities such as economic, transactional, contractual, out-group, quid pro quo and instrumental have been used to denote low-quality relationships where both the leader and follower expect direct reciprocity characterized by short-term economic exchange of behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, we consider SLMX and ELMX as relationships with different qualities rather than different levels of quality. Existing LMX research has exclusively measured social exchange relationships (Bernerth, et al, 2007), where a lack of social rather than a transactional or economic LMX relationship is in fact investigated. Therefore, the single continuum approach may be insufficient in assessing subordinates' psychological sensemaking of both the social and the economic aspects of the leader-member exchange relationship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

Kuvaas

Buch

Dysvik

et al. 2012

The Leadership Quarterly

100

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limitations Research Directions and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

Kuvaas

Buch

Dysvik

et al. 2012

The Leadership Quarterly

100

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…LMX was assessed with the eight-item leader-member social exchange scale (LMSX), recently developed and validated by Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, and Walker (2007). An example item is: "My efforts are reciprocated by my manager," and alpha for the scale was .94.…”

Section: Empowering Leadership El Was Measured With Els Developed Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale

Amundsen

Martinsen

2014

The Leadership Quarterly

314

420

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we discuss key aspects of empowering leadership as a basis for conceptualizing and operationalizing the construct. The conceptualization resulted in eight behavioral manifestations arranged within three influence processes, which were investigated in a sample of 317 subordinates in Study 1. The results supported the validity and reliability of a two-dimensional, 18-item instrument, labeled the Empowering Leadership Scale (ELS).In Study 2 (N = 215) and Study 3 (N = 831) the factor structure of ELS was cross-validated in two independent samples from different work settings. Preliminary concurrent validation in Study 1 and 2 found that ELS had a positive relationship to several subordinate variables, among others self-leadership and psychological empowerment. In Study 3 ELS was compared with scales measuring leader-member exchange (LMX) and transformational leadership. Discriminant validity was supported, and moreover, ELS showed incremental validity beyond LMX and transformational leadership when predicting psychological empowerment. The notion of empowerment was introduced in the field of management in the 1980s, and seems based on a need for an organizational concept that could promote employee productivity (Bartunek & Spreitzer, 2006) relative to fundamental technological and commercial changes that took place both in businesses and the public sector (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011;Hill & Huq, 2004). These changes led to, among others, increased customer/client orientation, more flexible, flattened, and decentralized organization designs, and improvements in quality and efficiency for most organizations. The nature of work has also changed substantially in the last decades by becoming more complex and cognitively demanding (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and highly skilled and educated "knowledge workers" have become the core of a rapidly growing segment of the workforce (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). KeywordsIn this changing "landscape" empowering leadership (EL) has emerged as a particular form of leadership, distinct from other approaches such as directive, transactional, and transformational leadership (Pearce et al., 2003). At its core, employee empowerment involves enhanced individual motivation at work through the delegation of responsibility and authority to the lowest organizational level where a competent decision can be made (Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As such, EL may generally be defined as (2000) noted that there is little theory focusing on the role of effective empowering leader behavior, which seems equally valid today. We therefore aimed to fill some of this lack and additionally identify key mediators of EL. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present paper is, at the individual level of analysis, (1) to theoretically underpin and define EL as guideline for (2) conceptualization and operationalization of the construct, (3) to identify central mediators, and (4) to build, refine, and validate a new instrument to measure the construct. We in...

show abstract

“…IMM measure was adopted from Rioux and Penner [12], which consists of ten items with reliability of 0.89, and another 4 items from Connell [13] with reliability of 0.89. Last but not least, the LMX quality measure was adopted from the 7-item construct of Scandura and Graen [14] with reliability of .84, and additional 12 items were adopted from Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, and Walker [15] with reliability of 0.9.…”

Section: A Reliability Of Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal Citizenship Motivation: A Rating Scale Validity of Rasch Model Measurement

Noranee¹,

Ishak²,

Mustapha³

et al. 2015

IJSSH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper investigated empirically the utility of rating scales in the development of high-quality measures. The present study utilized the Rasch rating scale model to examine and reassess the psychometric properties of the adapted Interpersonal Citizenship Motivation scales. It was argued that interpersonal citizenship behaviour (ICB) could be driven by prosocial motivation and impression management (IMM) motivation. ICB is commonly viewed as prosocial behavior, not impression management. However, a process by which employees are either motivated intrinsically or extrinsically, plays an important role in interpersonal behavior. As ICB was claimed to be more overt and visible than organizational citizenship behavior, the mediation of leader-member exchange quality may increase the likelihood of being more friendly and offering help among IM-oriented employees. The observed measures of the pilot study suggested a violation pattern, indicating a lack of monotonicity in the average measures of Interpersonal Citizenship Motivation scale. Hence, collapsing categories was recommended to create a more uniform frequency distribution. This paper aims to validate the rating scale that yields the highest quality measures for the construct of interest. The WINSTEPS software provides a wide variety of output formats that are virtually indispensable for investigating rating scale quality.Index Terms-Rating scale validity, Rasch measurement model, interpersonal citizenship behavior, employee motivation.

show abstract

Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale

Cited by 188 publications

References 56 publications

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale

Interpersonal Citizenship Motivation: A Rating Scale Validity of Rasch Model Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About