Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Review

Abstract

This paper reports a meta‐analysis that examines the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship quality and a multidimensional model of work performance (task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance). The results show a positive relationship between LMX and task performance (146 samples, ρ = .30) as well as citizenship performance (97 samples, ρ = .34), and negatively with counterproductive performance (19 samples, ρ = ‒.24). Of note, there was a positive relationship between LMX and objective task performance (20 samples, ρ = .24). Trust, motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction mediated the relationship between LMX and task and citizenship performance with trust in the leader having the largest effect. There was no difference due to LMX measurement instrument (e.g., LMX7, LMX‐MDM). Overall, the relationship between LMX and performance was weaker when (a) measures were obtained from a different source or method and (b) LMX was measured by the follower than the leader (with common source‐ and method‐biased effects stronger for leader‐rated LMX quality). Finally, there was evidence for LMX leading to task performance but not for reverse or reciprocal directions of effects.

Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation

“…To complete incremental and mediational analysis, we used correlations from our meta-analysis, and correlations obtained from other recent meta-analyses (Hoch et al, 2018;Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016). For some relationships (e.g., between procedural justice and employee voice), we did not have enough correlations within our sample and could not find previous meta-analytic estimates.…”

The role of leader relationship quality in the development of employee fit perceptions

“…Leaders help employees make sense of their surroundings (e.g., Brouer, Douglas, Treadway, & Ferris, ), alter employee perceptions about the work environment (e.g., justice & support; Treadway et al, ), and even change employee behavior (e.g., Brouer et al, ). For instance, many outlets cite poor managers as a top reason for employee turnover (e.g., Blake, ; Harter & Adkins/Gallup Polls, ) and a plethora of research indicate that the supervisory relationship is crucial for individual performance (see Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, ). Pop culture echoes this phenomenon in movies such as Office Space, The Devil Wears Prada, and Horrible Bosses; the central theme of each is that leaders have the power to make or break their subordinates’ career experiences.…”

“…Pop culture echoes this phenomenon in movies such as Office Space, The Devil Wears Prada, and Horrible Bosses; the central theme of each is that leaders have the power to make or break their subordinates’ career experiences. Despite this understanding, little research has explored the underlying mechanisms that explain the link between relationship quality and work performance, neglecting to identify the possible mediators (Martin et al, ). Accepting that leaders can help shape employees’ beliefs about the work environment, can we make the same argument about leaders helping shape an employee’s understanding of themselves, ultimately affecting their performance?…”

“…As it relates to the current context, a positive leader relationship is likely to “create clear paths to good performance,” via mediating mechanisms (Martin et al, , p. 72). Specifically, we aim to explore person–organization (PO) fit and person–job (PJ) fit as mediators between relationship quality and individual performance.…”

“…Whereas previous research has relied on the social exchange and self‐determination theories to explain the link between leader relationship and employee performance (Martin et al, ), we turn to the identity theory to help unpack the underlying mechanisms. Identity is “the set of meanings that define who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a unique person” (Burke & Stets, , p. 3).…”