Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX's influence on OCB and turnover intention
Introduction
Extant research has shown that the dyadic relationship between employees and supervisors, or leader–member exchange (LMX), plays a significant role in shaping important follower attitudes and behaviors (for reviews, see Dulebohn et al., 2012, Gerstner and Day, 1997, Ilies et al., 2007). A fundamental tenet of LMX theory is that leaders develop different quality relationships with followers in their work groups (i.e., LMX differentiation; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006) and these differences, in turn, drive behavioral and attitudinal reactions concurrently with, and in addition to, dyadic LMX relationships (Henderson et al., 2009, Tse et al., 2012, Vidyarthi et al., 2010).
In acknowledging the important multilevel nature of LMX theory, researchers have devoted increasing attention toward addressing individual- and group-level influences of LMX (e.g., Henderson et al., 2008, Henderson et al., 2009, Hooper and Martin, 2008, Liao et al., 2010, Ma and Qu, 2010, Tse et al., 2012, Vidyarthi et al., 2010). However, the number of multilevel LMX investigations remains small relative to traditional dyadic, individual-level studies (Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012), which has impeded researchers from reaching consensus as to how contextual LMX constructs operate to influence member outcomes. For example, building on the schools of thought suggesting that group-level LMX differentiation is necessary and even functional (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1973, Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), several scholars have argued for, and empirically supported the notion that, LMX differentiation can enhance the positive effects of LMX on follower outcomes (e.g., Henderson et al., 2008, Le Blanc and González-Romá, 2012, Liden et al., 2006). In contrast, other researchers have found that LMX differentiation violates principles of consistency and equality, leading to more deleterious or attenuating effects (Hooper and Martin, 2008, McClane, 1991). Thus, the effects of group-level LMX differentiation on LMX-outcome relationships are mixed and warrant more investigation.
A related line of research seeks to understand how a member's comparative LMX standing in his or her group, an individual-within-group conceptualization of differentiated LMX relationships, influences follower behaviors and attitudes. These inquiries, which have typically relied on “relative” LMX (RLMX; Henderson et al., 2008) or “social comparisons” of LMX (LMXSC; Vidyarthi et al., 2010) to capture individual-within-group differentiation, have demonstrated positive effects on job performance and some citizenship types beyond traditional LMX (Henderson et al., 2008, Tse et al., 2012, Vidyarthi et al., 2010). However, the conceptualizations and measurement of RLMX and LMXSC do not fully encompass the taxonomy of individual-within-group LMX measures and, as a result, are not appropriate for addressing all research questions (cf. Harrison & Klein, 2007). Specifically, both RLMX and LMXSC represent disparity measures of one's LMX in a group context (i.e., a follower's LMX is better or worse than his or her groupmates); and, as such, they are ill-equipped to answer questions regarding one's overall similarity/dissimilarity in a group. Thus, different measures of individual-within-group differentiation, namely those that explicitly address a follower's overall similarity (i.e., separation measures) with their group are needed for theoretical clarity.
Addressing these issues and answering calls to account for the impact of higher level climate variables (e.g., Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003) and workgroup context in LMX research (Avolio et al., 2009, Cogliser and Schriesheim, 2000, Henderson et al., 2009), our purpose is to empirically examine a multilevel model of LMX that integrates the dyadic perspective with group- and individual-within-group level perspectives to provide a more complete picture of LMX effects on follower outcomes. Building from the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), we argue that LMX differentiation and a new construct, LMX relational separation (LMXRS), interact with LMX to affect follower citizenship behaviors (OCB) and turnover intentions. LMX differentiation is a group-level construct that refers to the degree of within-group variation in leader–member relationship quality (Erdogan and Bauer, 2010, Henderson et al., 2009). LMXRS is an individual-within-group construct that captures the absolute separation between an individual and his or her group members in terms of perceived LMX quality. In contrast to RLMX and LMXSC, LMXRS is a Euclidean distance measure that does not include directional (i.e., better than/worse than) information and is better suited for the group engagement model's identity arguments (cf. Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Our study contributes to existing LMX research in three primary ways. First, we add to and clarify the growing research that addresses the multilevel nature of LMX relationships. We examine the interaction between individual-dyadic level LMX (i.e., individual LMX) and two distinct differentiated LMX constructs (i.e., LMX differentiation at the group-level and LMXRS at the individual-within-group level) to better understand how climates created by differentiated relationships in workgroups influence relationships between LMX and follower outcomes.
Second, in line with recent efforts to expand the taxonomy of LMX research (e.g., RLMX, Henderson et al., 2008; LMXSC, Vidyarthi et al., 2010), we introduce and develop a new construct – LMX relational separation – and test its moderating effect on LMX-OCB and turnover intention relationships. Thus, we demonstrate the importance of considering whether an employee is similar (low LMXRS) or dissimilar (high LMXRS) with his or her peers in terms of LMX quality, in addition to the main effect of absolute LMX quality.
Finally, by incorporating principles found in the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), we provide an alternative view that may help reconcile the inconclusive findings surrounding multilevel LMX conceptualizations. The group engagement model suggests that differentiation in LMX may impede individuals' ability to construct group member self-identities, which then stifles the traditionally advantageous effects of individual LMX on OCB and turnover intention. This is divergent from recent work that has argued for a positive, functional role of LMX differentiation (e.g., Henderson et al., 2008, Tse et al., 2012, Vidyarthi et al., 2010) and suggests instead that there may be important detriments associated with differentiation.
Section snippets
The group engagement model and differentiated leader–member exchange
Tyler and Blader, 2000, Tyler and Blader, 2003 group engagement model extends and integrates multiple theories relevant to multilevel examinations of LMX, including social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the group-value model of justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988), and relational models of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992). By merging varying, and sometimes competing, theoretical rationales, the group engagement model is able to explain how workgroup membership shapes members' social identities
Sample and procedure
We drew participants from six state-owned companies in three Chinese cities selected through personal contacts by the authors representing four different industries including: manufacturing, electronics, telecommunication and hotels. This helped to avoid contextual constraints associated with any particular organization or industry (Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
Matching questionnaires were randomly distributed to 289 employees within 92 functional groups such as human resources, marketing,
Results
We provide individual- and group-level descriptive statistics and correlations in Table 1. In addition, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses in AMOS to establish the discriminant validity of the measures. To maintain a favorable indicator-to-sample-size ratio for OCB, we used scale scores of specific sub-dimensions to form the respective factors. Results indicate adequate fit for the hypothesized three-factor model (χ2 (116, N = 223) = 311.70; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .09). Comparatively, an
Discussion
Responding to calls for more attention to the role of the workgroup context in LMX research (Avolio et al., 2009) as well climate-related effects (Hofmann et al., 2003) and by examining both absolute and comparative LMX constructs, we were able to more completely understand the effect of LMX on individual attitudes and behaviors in a group context. Consistent with our hypotheses, the results suggest that the exchange between follower and leader is not independent, but interdependent, because
References (92)
- et al.
Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes
The Leadership Quarterly
(2006) - et al.
Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1973) - et al.
Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement
The Leadership Quarterly
(2006) - et al.
Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate
The Leadership Quarterly
(2002) - et al.
Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective
The Leadership Quarterly
(1995) - et al.
A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium
Journal of Management
(2000) - et al.
LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes
The Leadership Quarterly
(2009) - et al.
Beyond personal leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX differentiation on employee reactions
The Leadership Quarterly
(2008) - et al.
Relational schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader–member exchanges: Some initial evidence
The Leadership Quarterly
(2008) - et al.
A team level investigation of the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance
The Leadership Quarterly
(2012)
Differentiation in leader–member exchange: A hierarchical linear modeling approach
The Leadership Quarterly
The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader–member exchange illustration
The Leadership Quarterly
A meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ)
The Leadership Quarterly
Relative leader–member exchange, negative affectivity and social identification: A moderated-mediation examination
The Leadership Quarterly
A relational model of authority in groups
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions
Annual Review of Psychology
To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams
Administrative Science Quarterly
Leadership and performance beyond expectations
Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regressions: Inferential and graphical techniques
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test
Academy of Management Journal
Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior
Journal of Applied Psychology
Using multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research
In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis
Psychological Bulletin
The wording and translation of research instruments
Leadership
Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models
Journal of Applied Psychology
Cooperative goals, leader people and productivity values: Their contribution to top management teams in China
Journal of Management Studies
Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance
Journal of Applied Psychology
Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multi-level perspective
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning?
Research in Organizational Behavior
Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?
Academy of Management Journal
Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development
Academy of Management Review
A meta-analysis of antecedent and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future
Journal of Management
Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue
Psychological Methods
Differentiated leader–member exchanges (LMX): The buffering role of justice climate
Journal of Applied Psychology
Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society
Administrative Science Quarterly
Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader–member exchange
Journal of Applied Psychology
Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues
Journal of Applied Psychology
A pleasure working together? The effects of dissimilarity in team member conscientiousness on team temporal processes and individual satisfaction
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Role-making processes within complex organizations
Group influences on individuals in organizations
What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations
Academy of Management Review
Cited by (158)
When team members retaliate: The effect of LMX differentiation on team CWB
2023, Acta PsychologicaWhat if authoritarian to all or to some? A multi-level investigation of within-team differentiation in authoritarian leadership
2023, Journal of Business ResearchThe impact of leader member exchange quality and differentiation on counterproductive and citizenship behavior in health care teams
2024, Health Care Management Review