The Effects of Leader and Subordinate Characteristics in the Development of Leader–Member Exchange Quality¹

Abstract

This study investigated the contribution of both subordinate and leader characteristics in the development of leader‐member exchange (LMX) quality. Data from 56 subordinate‐superior dyads working at a large West‐coast media company revealed that subordinates high in work self‐efficacy were liked more by their supervisors, perceived to be more similar to their supervisors, experienced more positive LMX quality, and were rated as better performers than subordinates low in self‐efficacy. Previous job experience, was related only to one outcome; supervisor's liking of the subordinate. Subordinates initially low in self‐efficacy benefited from high LMX, as evidenced by increased end‐of‐program self‐efficacy. Perceptions of similarity between supervisor and subordinate were found to be more important to LMX quality than actual demographic similarity. Leader self‐efficacy and optimism predicted subordinates' ratings of LMX quality only for female supervisors. Unexpectedly, leader self‐efficacy and optimism were related to the leaders' own ratings of LMX and subordinate performance.

Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader – member exchange in a German working context to findings in the US

“…As hypothesized, LMX and occupational self-efficacy are positively related. This result is similar to results of US studies (e.g., Murphy & Ensher, 1999). Graen (2003) even indicates that self-efficacy may be considered a dimension of LMX.…”

“…In an empirical study, Murphy and Ensher (1999) did in fact find that leading in an LMX-way enhances followers" selfefficacy (for an overview of the correlations found in the US for LMX and the concepts regarded here, see Table 1). …”

Leadership Development: An Outcome-Oriented Review Based on Time and Levels of Analyses

“…Situated in the context of a new member joining a group, theory and research describe a role-making process (Graen & Scandura 1987) during which the leader and follower negotiate the degree of interdependence in their respective work roles and exchange socially based resources, such as loyalty and exceptional work performance, as a way to build a relationship based on mutual trust, respect, and commitment (Dienesch & Liden 1986, Liden et al 1997. Time-lagged and longitudinal studies have attempted to capture this process as viewed by the leader and/or follower (Bauer & Green 1996, Liden et al 1993, Murphy & Ensher 1999, Nahrgang et al 2009. Bauer & Green (1996) offer the clearest portrayal of this relationship-building process.…”

Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review

“…Citizenship performance was coded when the study employed self-, leader-, or peer-rated measures of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), contextual performance, or extra-role behaviors, such as those developed by Podsakoff et al (1990) and Williams and Anderson (1991). Counterproductive performance coding included objective measures of absenteeism (e.g., van Dierendonck, Le Blanc & van Breukelen, 2002), withdrawal behaviors (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010), and reported accidents (e.g., Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999); self-rated measures of psychological withdrawal (e.g., Aryee & Chen, 2006), resistance to change (e.g., van Dam, et al, 2008), and counterproductive behavior (e.g., Lindsay, 2009); leader-rated scales of retaliation behavior (e.g., Townsend, Phillips & Elkins, 2000) and social loafing (e.g., Murphy, Wayne, Liden & Erdogan, 2003;Murphy, 1998).…”