Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity

Joseph, Dana L.; Newman, Daniel A.; Sin, Hock Peng

doi:10.1108/s1479-8387(2011)0000006012

Cited by 37 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The low response rate and sample size was a limitation, but we ensured that respondents reflected a representative variation in NMAHP roles. In addition, although generalisation is restricted, greater power is offered by the rare multisource, dyadic design, which utilised matched subordinate–supervisor data (Joseph et al ., ). A further limitation was the inability to verify the proposition that supervisor support is lacking even in high LMX relationships, as the LMX‐7 measure did not directly measure support experienced or offered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leader–member exchange and strain: a study of job demands and role status

Hesselgreaves

Scholarios

2014

Human Res Mgmt Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-quality supervisor-subordinate relationships, measured as leader-member exchange (LMX), can either reduce or intensify subordinates' job strain. We examined LMX effects on job demands and strain in junior and senior role nursing dyads in a sample of five UK hospitals. LMX reduced job demands and strain for junior subordinates, but for senior subordinates both low-and high-quality LMX lead to greater strain, indicating a curvilinear relationship between LMX and strain. We found no buffering effect of LMX between job demands and strain. The article discusses the role of supervisors in controlling potential job stressors for employees and implications for stress management in large, complex workplaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Responses were received from 121 supervisors and 126 employees (116 dyads; 70 with junior subordinates; 46 with senior subordinates). These multisource data are rare in LMX research (Joseph et al ., ) and compensate, to some extent, for the response rate of 15 per cent. Gatekeeping/ethics restrictions prevented follow‐up.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader–member exchange and strain: a study of job demands and role status

Hesselgreaves

Scholarios

2014

Human Res Mgmt Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LMX literature is dominated by two measures: First, the LMX-7 scale described by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995; see also Dansereau et al, 1975;Scandura & Graen, 1984) consists of seven items reflecting a unidimension of LMX based on the observation that the LMX dimensions are so highly correlated that they tap into a single measure and, second, the multidimensional measure (LMX-MDM) developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998), which consists of 12 items reflecting four dimensions (contribution, loyalty, affect, and professional respect). Although there is broad consensus that LMX is a higher order construct and the correlation between the two main measures is extremely high (corrected r = .90 ;Joseph, Newman, & Sin, 2011), it would be prudent to examine this as a potential moderator, as each measure tends to be employed by different research teams.…”

Section: Moderators Of the Lmx And Performance Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Martin

Guillaume

Thomas

et al. 2015

Personnel Psychology

573

325

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Two anonymous reviewers observed that there are high meta‐analytically derived correlations between multiple mediating mechanisms in our models (e.g., LMX, satisfaction with leader, trust). High correlations between constructs suggest potential issues with discriminant validity (Joseph, Newman, & Sin, ), and raise concerns regarding whether one construct, out of several that are interrelated, can be identified as being the primary explanation between leadership behaviors and follower performance. While high correlations between constructs may raise concerns when considering just their bivariate relations, these concerns are less relevant when considering models involving multiple constructs and various different relations.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are competing theoretical rationales and mechanisms used to explain the relation between leadership behaviors (e.g., consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership) and follower performance (e.g., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). We conducted two studies to critically examine and clarify the leadership behaviors-follower performance relation by pitting the various theoretical rationales and mechanisms against each other. We first engaged in deductive (Study 1) and then inductive (Study 2) theorizing and relied upon 35 meta-analyses involving 3327 primary-level studies and 930 349 observations as input for meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Results of our dual deductive-inductive approach revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly consistent explanation for why leadership behaviors affect follower performance. Specifically, leader-member exchange is a mediating mechanism that was empirically determined to be involved in the largest indirect relations between the four major leadership behaviors and follower performance. This result represents a departure from current conceptualizations and points to a common underlying mechanism that parsimoniously explains how leadership behaviors relate to follower performance. Also, results lead to a shift in terms of recommendations for what leaders should focus on to bring about improved follower performance.Why do positive leadership behaviors improve various types of follower performance? This question is critically important for theoretical progression in the leadership domain because if we do not understand why these specific relations occur, we do not have a solid theory (Bacharach, 1989;Dubin, 1978;Sutton & Staw, 1995;Whetten, 1989). Additionally, if we do not clearly understand why leadership behaviors-follower performance relations occur, we will be limited in our ability to provide accurate and actionable recommendations for leaders that will result in the most favorable performance outcomes.While the question above is critically important for theoretical and practical reasons, results to date have led to multiple answers across the various leadership behaviors-follower performance relations. For example, consider one of the most well-researched leadership behavior-follower performance relation: transformational leadership and task performance. An examination of the literature reveals that there are at least eight empirically supported mediators explaining this relation, including self-congruence, empowerment, positive effect, trust, person/job fit, core job characteristics, leader-member exchange (LMX), and work engagement (Aryee, . Similar observations can be made for other often-researched leadership behaviors. For consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership (i.e., the four most frequently studied leadership behaviors), the presence of multiple mediating mechanismsoftentimes more than 10serving as explanations for their relations with follow...

show abstract

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Measurement: Evidence for Consensus, Construct Breadth, and Discriminant Validity

Cited by 37 publications

References 79 publications

Leader–member exchange and strain: a study of job demands and role status

Leader–member exchange and strain: a study of job demands and role status

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

Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About