Supervisor–subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: Review and testable propositions

Abstract

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tTheoretical explanations are presented for the poor convergence in supervisor and subordinate leader-member exchange (LMX) descriptions that are commonly reported in the literature. We focus on (1) measurement deficiencies, and (2) differences in supervisor-subordinate perceptions of the LMX construct. Additionally, several other factors (e.g., informationprocessing styles, attributional biases, etc.) are explored that may explain poor convergence. Testable propositions and suggestions for future research are developed and presented, and the applicability of the explanations to other leadership approaches is considered.

Quantitative and qualitative examination of propositions concerning supervisor–subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality

“…As discussed in greater detail below and in Zhou and Schriesheim (2009), the poor convergence between leader and member perspectives has important implications for research and practice. Among these implications is that the quality of the leadermember relationship may be best represented by two separate constructs and measures, since leader perceived LMX is not likely to be isomorphic with follower perceived LMX.…”

“…With respect to LMX in particular, throughout its research history, LMX has been operationalized mostly in terms of perceived leader behaviors and/or behavior intentions that are directed at the subordinate, and LMX has been generally measured from the subordinate's perspective alone (Gerstner & Day, 1997;Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Liden & Maslyn, 1998;Liden et al, 1997;Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999;Schriesheim, Cogliser, Scandura, Lankau, & Powers, 1999). As a consequence, Zhou and Schriesheim (2009) reviewed the LMX literature and collateral literatures in fields such as performance appraisal, attribution, and human information processing and developed a set of testable propositions concerning leader-follower agreement on perceived relationship quality. Five of these propositions can be tested using the same data, and consequently, these are the propositions that we selected for examination in this study.…”

“…It then moved on to a review of the literature related to supervisor-subordinate description convergence and led to the development of testable propositions that are based upon different explanations of why poor leadermember description convergence commonly occurs (Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009).…”

“…The current study is designed to examine five of the testable propositions developed in our most recent earlier research (Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009). As a consequence of the careful development and prior presentation of these propositions, the current research can be presented in a more concise manner by more briefly presenting the rationale of the propositions and allowing those interested in their fuller development and treatment to consult this earlier work.…”

Conceptualizing leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process

“…The use of an attitudes framework also has the potential to contribute to understanding the difference in leadership perceptions when assessed from the follower and leader perspectives (Sin, Nahrgang, Morgeson, 2009;Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009. It might be the case, for example, that follower-leader congruence of leadership perceptions might be higher for different attitudinal components.…”