Leader self-efficacy and role ambiguity and follower leader-member exchange

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether leader self-efficacy and leader role ambiguity are related to follower leader-member exchange (LMX). In addition, the authors examine whether the relationship between follower LMX and turnover intention will be mediated by need satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using an electronic survey tool filled out by 109 leaders and 696 followers. Findings Leader role ambiguity was positively related to an economic LMX relationship and negatively related to a social LMX relationship. Furthermore, the links between social and economic LMX relationships and turnover intention were mediated by satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and relatedness. Research limitations/implications The main limitation of the study is the cross-sectional nature of the data from the followers. Practical implications Provided that the findings are generalizable organizations should provide role clarification initiatives to leaders with high role ambiguity. Originality/value Despite the centrality of role theory in the development of LMX theory, prior research has not investigated whether the extent to which leaders perceive that they meet the expectations of their leadership roles affects followers’ perception of LMX relationships.

A Literature Review of Social and Economic Leader–Member Exchange

“…One additional suggestion for future research could be further integration of self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1985) as an underlying explanatory mechanism. Kuvaas and Buch (2020) findings indicate that economic LMX seems to negatively influence employee outcomes partly by reducing need satisfaction. Therefore, it may be of particular interest, especially considering that social and economic LMX may serve significant, but different roles in need satisfaction, and thereby, in the process of self-determination (Kuvaas and Buch, 2020).…”

“…Limited research exists on different leader characteristics and their influence on followers' perceived LMX relationship. However, Kuvaas and Buch (2020) found that leader role ambiguity was positively related to follower economic LMX and negatively related to follower social LMX. Since role ambiguity is often experienced as a type of strain, these leaders may simply not have the necessary resources to build social LMX relationships with their followers (Kopperud et al, 2018).…”

“…Tying together laissez-fair leadership, leader-experienced strain and economic LMX could therefore be a potential avenue for future research. Nevertheless, due to the negative association found between social LMX and role ambiguity, it seems necessary that the leader has a sufficient degree of role clarity and experienced safety within his or her role in order for the leader to be able to build social LMX relationships (Kuvaas and Buch, 2020). Overall, there are a few studies contributing to the limited knowledge regarding antecedents to economic LMX relationships.…”

Leader Psychological Need Satisfaction Trickles Down: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange

“…Accordingly, recent research indicates it is also important to consider psychological need satisfaction as an antecedent of positive leadership styles, as to better understand why leaders engage into behaviors conductive of such styles ( Paas et al, 2020 ). Second, prior work has mostly adopted a single level approach to psychological need satisfaction, overlooking how psychological need satisfaction is embedded in complex relations between leaders and followers ( Kuvaas and Buch, 2019 ; Xie et al, 2020 ) that cross multiple levels of analysis ( Schreurs et al, 2014 ; Batistič et al, 2017 ).…”

“…LMX refers to the fact that leaders develop differentiated relationships with their employees ( Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995 ), where high-quality relationships are characterized by exchanges based on mutual trust, respect, liking, and influence ( Liden and Maslyn, 1998 ) and lead to positive outcomes for both parties ( Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995 ; Dulebohn et al, 2012 ; Xie et al, 2020 ). Since LMX is considered as need-driven ( Dulebohn et al, 2012 ) and need-satisfying process ( Kuvaas and Buch, 2019 ) that connects multiple levels of analysis ( Liao et al, 2019 ), we propose that LMX constitutes a mechanism through which leader psychological need satisfaction trickles down to employees, from a dyadic viewpoint.…”