Multilevel Conceptualization of Leader–Member Exchange Processes: a Comprehensive Review

Abstract

In this study, I have provided the first review of recent multilevel developments in the leader– member exchange (LMX) literature and identified fruitful areas for future research. After thoroughly reviewing conceptualization and operationalization in the literature, I summarized empirical findings at the dyadic, individual within-team, and team levels. I then addressed confusion in conceptualization and operationalization in the literature. I also suggested additional antecedents, moderators, and outcome variables for future researchers to focus on for the expansion of the nomological networks of the various multilevel LMX constructs. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Affect and leader-member exchange in the new millennium: A state-of-art review and guiding framework

“…Noting that LMX and affect-related constructs are relationship-based and nested in interpersonal processes and functional systems at different levels in an organization, we segue to emerging areas for future research using the multilevel perspective, which focuses on within-person, between persons, interpersonal, team and organizational levels of conceptualization in organizations (Ashkanasy, 2003;Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011;Connelly & Gooty, 2015;Yammarino et al, 2005). Our review article is thus distinguished from earlier reviews (e.g., Gooty et al, 2010;Paik, 2016;Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999;Yammarino et al, 2005) insofar as we deal with both LMX and affect. Thus we focus in particular on the intertwined nature and characteristics of both concepts by integrating and synthesizing the LMX and affect research (i.e., theoretically and empirically) across multiple levels of analysis (Ashkanasy, 2003;Tse et al, 2015;Yammarino, et al, 2005).…”

My LMX standing with my leader as compared to my coworkers: conditional indirect effect of LMX social comparison

“…For example, Henderson et al (2008) and Ma and Qu (2010) found the positive effect of LMX differentiation on behavioural outcomes. The current study has also answered the call of Paik (2016), who suggested exploring more moderators of relative LMX-outcome relationships. This study's findings show that LMXSC is an important element in forming the follower's relational identification and subsequent outcomes.…”

Individual Variation in Responding to Leader–Member Exchange Differentiation: The Moderating Roles of Internal Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy

“…In the LMXD literature, researchers have demonstrated that the direct effects of LMXD on employee work outcomes are inconsistent and weak (for reviews, see Martin et al [2018] and Paik [2016]). For example, some reported positive effects of LMXD on in-role performance (Haynie et al, 2014) andcommitment (Le Blanc &González-Romá, 2012).…”

“…As prior LMXD studies have centered on team-focused explanations on LMXD phenomena, current knowledge on individual variations in a high LMXD situation is relatively limited (Epitropaki et al, 2016;Paik, 2016).…”

“…In addition, even the limited number of studies on individual responses to LMXD probed team-level moderators (e.g., team climate [Erdogan & Bauer, 2010;Haynie et al, 2014] and relative LMX standing within a team [Kauppila, 2016;Liden et al, 2006]), rather than individual-level moderators underlying the LMXD effects. Hence, compared with the knowledge on team-level LMXD phenomena, our current knowledge on individual variations in response to LMXD is very limited (Epitropaki et al, 2016;Paik, 2016). In this regard, the primary purpose of the present study is to investigate how individual reactions to LMXD vary depending on individual-level moderators, such as their personal dispositions.…”