LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes

Henderson, David; Liden, Robert C.; Glibkowski, Brian; Chaudhry, Anjali

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003

Cited by 341 publications

(425 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

390

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, this study contributes to the LMX literature. Recognizing the differentiated distribution of LMX relationships within a team, previous studies have uncovered the dark side of LMX differentiation (Henderson, et al, 2009). However, a high-quality LMX relationship itself is still associated with many positive outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997;Dulebohn et al, 2012).…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

You don’t actually want to get closer to the star: How LMX leads to workplace ostracism

Wang

2018

Front. Bus. Res. China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-quality leader-member exchange (LMX) is commonly seen as beneficial to employees. However, this is not always the case in the eyes of other members of the same team. Based on social comparison theory, we propose that members who have high-quality LMX relationships with team leaders might face workplace ostracism through being envied by other members of the same team. Further, we hypothesize that this indirect influence is mitigated by the high-quality LMX member's agreeableness. Based on data from 196 employees, we found that though ostensibly LMX quality directly led to less workplace ostracism, it had a positive effect on workplace ostracism through being envied by other team members, and agreeableness buffered this indirect positive effect. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

You don’t actually want to get closer to the star: How LMX leads to workplace ostracism

Wang

2018

Front. Bus. Res. China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, we considered the nesting structure of employees within the job, but employees are also nested within other levels. In this regard, LMX differentiation, which is studied in past research, acknowledges the nested structure of the leader (Henderson et al, 2009). Finally, we believe that it may also be relevant to look at LMX differentiation within the nested structure of the job.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When affective well-being is empowered: the joint role of leader-member exchange and the employment relationship

Audenaert

Vanderstraeten

Buyens

2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HRM and the leader are often assumed to play a joint role in affecting employee reactions. In a multilevel, time-lagged study, we examined the joint role of the employment relationship and leader-member exchange. We tested whether this joint role is essential to when leadermember exchange leads to affective well-being via psychological empowerment. We build on HRM literature to expect that the relationship of leader-member exchange with psychological empowerment is stronger when the employment relationship is consistent with leader-member exchange quality. Results indicated that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between leader-member exchange and affective well-being. This mediation is stronger for employees in a mutual investment employment relationship. The findings point at the importance of consistency of resources from the employment relationship and leadermember exchange. Nevertheless, the findings also suggest that resources from leader-member exchange compensate for employment relationships with low resources. Our findings contribute to scholars' understanding of the joint role of HRM systems and leader behaviors. KeywordsEmployment relationship, LMX, psychological empowerment, affective well-being, HRM systems, leader behavior 3

show abstract

“…LMX theory suggests that managers tend to develop different relationships with their employees (Dienesch & Liden, 1986;Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009;Kozlowski, Mak, & Chao, 2016). Due to the scarcity of time and resources, managers typically do not invest in building high LMX relationships with all employees but only with a selected few.…”

Section: The Moderating Role Of Lmxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public versus Private Voice

Isaakyan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes

Cited by 341 publications

References 79 publications

You don’t actually want to get closer to the star: How LMX leads to workplace ostracism

You don’t actually want to get closer to the star: How LMX leads to workplace ostracism

When affective well-being is empowered: the joint role of leader-member exchange and the employment relationship

Public versus Private Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About