I know how I feel but do I know how you feel? Investigating metaperceptions to advance relationship-based leadership approaches.

Abstract

Although Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory suggests that leaders and followers see their relationship similarly as a function of repeated role exchanges, empirical research has found only modest levels of agreement between leader and follower LMX ratings. This is not only problematic theoretically, it also brings up the question as to whether leader-follower dyad members are even aware of the lack of convergence of their relationship perceptions. To explore this issue, we draw from social psychology research on close relationships to introduce the construct of LMX metaperceptions (i.e., a person's inference of how the other person in the dyad feels about their relationship) and then utilize the dyadic model of metaperceptions to investigate the accuracy (i.e., the extent to which LMX metaperceptions are consistent with the other dyad member's LMX ratings) and bias (i.e., the extent to which LMX metaperceptions are colored by the dyad member's own LMX ratings) of LMX metaperceptions. We find that LMX metaperceptions are not only inaccurate but also biased. To shed light on what can alleviate bias and promote accuracy, we examine power dependence-an inherent feature of leader-follower relationships-and highlight its downside in engendering greater levels of bias for more powerful leaders. Moreover, we revisit LMX agreement through dyadic analyses and find that at the dyadic level it may be even weaker than what previous research has found. Overall, this research offers a more complete picture of leader-follower relationship perceptions and provides an important dyadic perspective for future research aimed at promoting mutual understanding between leaders and followers.

Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance.

“…This design could allow testing of whether the leader’s humility is relationship-specific and whether it is reciprocated by subordinates relationally. Such a study could follow the approach taken to examine agreement between leaders and followers on LMX ratings (Yuan et al, 2022).…”

“…Relationship-specific behaviors occur vertically and horizontally in organizations. For example, vertically, employees' perceptions of leader's behavior vary significantly from one subordinate to another (Yuan et al, 2022). Horizontally, coworkers' ratings of others' listening, speech quality, helping organizational citizenship behavior (Kluger et al, 2021), envy, contempt, and knowledge hiding (Li et al, 2022) show significant fluctuation from one coworker to another.…”

Being on the same page matters: A meta-analytic investigation of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement.

“…Specifically, the resources that leaders can bring to their dyadic relationship (e.g., developmental and mentoring opportunities) are arguably scarcer and more valuable than what followers can contribute through their work efforts (Wilson et al, 2010). Given the inherent power differentials between leaders and followers (Yuan et al, 2022), followers may be more sensitive to ambiguities in their relationships than are leaders. This distinction arises because followers' misinterpretation and miscalculation of their relationship with the leader may carry greater costs than are borne by leaders who mischaracterize these relationships.…”

“…Moreover, such an integration can expand the theoretical horizon of LMX inquiries. For example, Yuan et al (2022) incorporated the critical notion of metaperceptions (i.e., an individual's inference of how the other party in the dyad feels about their relationship, Laing et al, 1966) into LMX research. Their findings indicated that dyadic LMX metaperceptions were both biased and inaccurate, suggesting leaders and followers may not even know that they do not see eye to eye regarding their relationship.…”

Why do you look familiar? - Exploring the role of employee-customer identification in adapting the service offering

“…Researchers started paying attention to this form of identification following Millward (1995) and Brewer and Gardner (1996) work wherein they found that employees seek to foster meaningful relations with their customers, as they are the most salient group they interact with regularly (Paunova and Li-Ying, 2022). Previous research in this area has been ignorant of the relational level bonds that an individual develops during his interaction at the workplace and defining himself in relation to others (Andersen and Chen, 2002;Sluss and Ashforth, 2007;Yuan et al, 2021). In particular, the role of relational identification between an employee and his customer remains neglected.…”