Forgiveness in leader–member exchange relationships: Mediating and moderating mechanisms

Abstract

Guided by the relationship science literature, we developed and tested a model of forgiveness in leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships across three independent studies. Study 1 utilized a sample of 254 employees from eight organizations located in four countries and showed that higher quality LMX led to higher job satisfaction and subjective well‐being via greater follower's forgiveness and subsequent follower's relational efforts. Building on Study 1, Study 2 (N = 95) adopted an experimental scenario design in order to examine the association between LMX and forgiveness as well as the moderating role of forgiveness climate. LMX was found to positively affect forgiveness, and forgiveness climate was found to be a significant moderator. Study 3 was a time‐lagged study that utilized a sample of 262 working professionals in the United States and provided support for our hypothesized model. Overall, our three studies cast light on forgiveness processes in LMX relationships and show that forgiveness can be used as a relationship maintenance strategy that yields positive outcomes. Practitioner points Managers and HR representatives should promote forgiveness via trainings and interventions in order to gain the positive outcomes of job satisfaction and subjective well‐being following interpersonal transgressions in organizations. Forgiveness climate can act as a contextual moderator that facilitates forgiveness in leader–follower relationships. Therefore, organizations should create environments that encourage forgiveness and relationship repair across all levels of their hierarchy.

Combining Associations Between Emotional Intelligence, Work Motivation, and Organizational Justice With Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Profile Analysis via Multidimensional Scaling (PAMS) Approach

“…These benefits include tangible resources, career opportunities, emotional support (including emotional encouragement), and enhanced feedback (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995;Zagenczyk et al, 2015). Consequently, high LMX employees are more likely to engage in positive behaviors, including forgiving supervisor errors (Radulovic et al, 2019), while those low on LMX will be more prone to negative behaviors (Tziner et al, 2010;Breevaart et al, 2015). Conversely, and with respect to enlarging the network of constructs investigated in this study, it is important to note that poor relations between managers and their employees will almost certainly result in reciprocal counterproductive behavior (Chernyak-Hai and Tziner, 2014).…”

Leader-follower transgressions, relationship repair strategies and outcomes: A state-of-the-science review and a way forward

“…Relatively few studies have attempted to examine the dynamic relational process that unfolds after a leader or follower transgression has taken place, the transgressor's and the victim's actions and reactions and relationship outcomes (e.g., Byrne, et. al., 2014;Radulovic, Thomas, Epitropaki, & Legood, 2019). This fragmentation becomes evident in the keyword co-occurrence analysis we did as part of our review using VOS viewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010;2019).…”

“…There are seven studies examining leader ethics-based transgressions (mainly dishonesty), a relationship repair strategy (apology) and outcomes together (i.e., Bagdasarov, Connelly, & Johnson, 2019;Byrne et al, 2014;Grover & Hasel, 2015;Grover et al, 2019;Radulovic et al, 2019;Zheng, van Dijke, Narayanan, & De Cremer, 2018) and one study examining a task-focused transgression (incompetence), a relationship repair strategy (penance) and outcomes (Dirks et al, 2011). The vast majority of studies have examined the direct relationship between leader follower transgressions and outcomes.…”

“…Furthermore, employees who punitively evaluated their leaders were more likely to have turnover intentions and to psychologically withdraw from their organization. Similarly, Radulovic et al (2019) in their field studies asked participants to think of leader transgressions they had experienced before completing the surveys. In their Study 3, they asked participants to specifically think of the eight transgression types proposed by Shapiro et al (2011) before answering.…”

“…Finally, we could not find any longitudinal studies in the leader-follower transgressions literature. Only Radulovic et al, (2019) used a time-lagged design in one of their three studies to examine the mediating role of forgiveness in the relationship between LMX and follower attitudes and subjective well-being. Thus, time and the temporal nature of leader-follower transgression events has been completely ignored by existing research.…”