Measuring Quality of Interaction Between Leaders and Members

Bhal, Kanika T.; Ansari, Mahfooz A.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01119.x

Cited by 62 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a review of LMX studies published in the last 10 years reveals two different theoretical conceptualizations of LMX: the popularity of LMX research grew, so did the number of items. For example, Graen and Cashman (1975) and Liden and Graen (1980) measured vertical exchange with a four-item scale; Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982) employed a five-item scale to measure LMX; Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, and Tepper (1992) developed a six-item LMX scale; Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) proposed a seven-item LMX scale; Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) used an eight-item information exchange scale; Bhal and Ansari (1996) employed a 10-item quality interaction scale; Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed an 11-and, subsequently, a 12-item multidimensional LMX scale. Others have used a 14-item vertical exchange scale (Wakabayashi, Graen, & Uhl-Bien, 1990;Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003), a 17-item LMX scale (Deluga & Perry, 1994), and even a 40-item Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bernerth¹,

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn the last 10 years, research devoted to the construct of leader-member exchange (LMX) has increasingly relied on the tenets of social exchange as a theoretical foundation to propose and test relationships between supervisor-subordinate dyads and variables of significant consequence. Despite the theory underpinning such relationships, researchers continue to measure LMX with scales developed to assess vertical dyad linkage (VDL), not social exchange. To address this concern, we investigated the content validity of LMX7 (the most widely cited measure of LMX) and LMX-MDM (a popular multidimensional measure of LMX). Findings from content validity assessments by 25 LMX experts revealed LMX7 and LMX-MDM items are not representative of the construct of social exchange. As such, we undertook a series of studies to develop a new scale we label, leader-member social exchange (LMSX). Results indicate LMSX is able to assess different, as well as the same, components of the supervisor-subordinate relationship as previous scales while being more theoretically consistent with the notion of social exchange.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bernerth¹,

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The work of Bhal and Ansari (1996) is a first step in this direction and also points the way toward more multidimensional theory and instrumentation.…”

Section: Directions For Further Theory Development and Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Implications of leader‐member exchange theory and research for human resource development research

Burns¹,

Otte²

1999

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leader-member exchange (1 Y ) theory and research is one approac 1 to studying organizational liadership. It has developed as an alternative to average leadership style (ALS), which attempts to identiJy a single most effective leadership style. LMXfocuses instead on the heterogeneity of dyadic relationships. LMX theory is not yet well enough developed to be a guide to HRD practitioners, but further research in this area could lead to the development of better theory to guide HRD interventions. There are some strengths and many weaknesses in LMX theory and research. Recent research has supported the theory, but research is needed on instrumentation, the impact ofLMX quality on organizational outcomes, the ways in which leadermember relationships develop, and behavioral components affecting the initiation of leader-member relationships.Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and research is one approach to studying organizational leadership. Organizational leadership theory can be useful to HRD practitioners designing management development, succession planning, and managerial coaching processes or attempting to solve performance issues in a work group. L,MX theory is not yet well enough developed to be a guide to HRD practitioners, but further research in this area could lead in turn to the development of better theory to guide HRD interventions. This article provides background and suggested directions for HRD researchers who are interested in theoretical and research efforts that lead, ultimately, to improving leader-member relationships.The theory of leader-member exchange maintains that the leader and each individual member of a work group have a unique relationship. In initial interactions, judgments are made and opinions are formed by the leader and the member. If the opinion is positive, the leader will assign better tasks to the HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY. vo1. 10, no 3 . Fall 1999 0 Jossey-Bass Publishers 225

show abstract

“…Specifically, they proposed three dimensions of LMX that consist of perceived contribution, loyalty, and affect. However, Bhal and Ansari's (1996) empirical study in the Indian setting only supported perceived contribution and affect as relevant measures of the quality of the interaction. More recently, Liden and Maslyn (1998) proposed a four-dimensional construct of LMX known as LMX-Multidimensional measure (LMX-MDM) by including professional respect as the fourth dimension.…”

Section: Leader-member Exchange Model: Conceptualization Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas VDL is seen as a concept comprising the characteristics of leaders, members, and the relationship between leaders and members (Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995), the social exchange perspective is concerned with the different types of relationship or exchange that leaders cultivate with individual subordinates (Bhal & Ansari, 2000;Dansereau et al, 1975;Graen & Scandura, 1987;Liden & Graen, 1980). The present study adopts the latter perspective and accordingly defines LMX as the quality of the exchange relationship between an employee and his or her immediate superior (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).…”

Section: Leader-member Exchange Model: Conceptualization Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supervisor vs. Subordinate Perception on Leader-Member Exchange Quality: A Malaysian Perspective

Hwa¹,

Jantani²,

Ansari³

2009

IJBM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable research evidence (e.g., Campbell, White, & Johnson, 2003;Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998;Xin, 2004) to suggest that supervisors and subordinates do not agree about the quality of their relationships. Since these past studies were mainly found in the western countries, this study was undertaken to investigate the dimensionality of a specific leader-member exchange (LMX) measure across two different samples in the Malaysian context. Accordingly, we employed a principal components analysis on LMX data obtained from two different sources: 229 employees and their 109 immediate supervisors representing various organizations in Northern Malaysia. As expected, we found that employees' perceptions of the quality of exchanges differ from those of their supervisors. The implications of these findings for future research on LMX are discussed.

show abstract

Measuring Quality of Interaction Between Leaders and Members

Cited by 62 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Implications of leader‐member exchange theory and research for human resource development research

Supervisor vs. Subordinate Perception on Leader-Member Exchange Quality: A Malaysian Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About