What About the Leader in Leader-Member Exchange? The Impact of Resource Exchanges and Substitutability on the Leader.

Wilson, Kelly Schwind; Sin, Hock‐Peng; Conlon, Donald E.

doi:10.5465/amr.2010.51141654

Cited by 126 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In lower-LMX dyads, both supervisors and subordinates have fewer valuable resources to exchange or they are less motivated to exchange (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995), therefore, abusing low-LMX subordinates will generate less of a threat of resource loss to supervisors. In contrast, potential resource loss caused by abusing high-LMX subordinates will be higher because such subordinates possess abundant and valuable resources for exchange (Wilson et al 2010), and they are more inclined to exchange by demonstrating higher work performance and enacting more extra-role behaviors (Gerstner and Day 1997;Ilies et al 2007). Therefore, when supervisors experience negative affect at work, it is more strategic to abuse low-LMX subordinates than to abuse high-LMX subordinates.…”

Section: The Moderating Role Of Lmxmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Supervisors have a variety of positional resources for exchange, such as control of payroll, promotion opportunities, and delegation. Although subordinates cannot exchange such resources in kind, they often repay the favors in other forms, such as lateral information, commitment and loyalty toward their supervisors, and higher performance (Oc and Bashshur 2013;Wilson et al 2010). Therefore, supervisors are dependent on subordinates to achieve personal benefits (e.g., career advancement) by acquiring valuable resources (Oc and Bashshur 2013;Wilson et al 2010).…”

Section: The Moderating Role Of Lmxmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Pan

Lin

2016

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by the cognitive-neoassociationistic model of aggression (Berkowitz in Psychol Bull 106:59-73, 1989; Am Psychol 45: 494-503, 1990), this study examines how supervisors' negative affect at work influences their interaction with subordinates (i.e., abusive supervision), which further affects subordinate outcomes (i.e., negative affect at work, job satisfaction, and personal initiative). Drawing upon research on power/resource interdependence and victim precipitation theory, we also test whether the positive relationship between supervisors' negative affect and abusive supervision is moderated by leader-member exchange (LMX). Using one hundred and eighty supervisor-subordinate dyads from five hotels, we found that, (a) supervisors' negative affect at work was positively related to abusive supervision, (b) LMX buffered the positive association between supervisors' negative affect and abusive supervision, and (c) the indirect effects of supervisors' negative affect on subordinate outcomes (higher negative affect at work, lower job satisfaction, and fewer personal initiatives) via abusive supervision was buffered by LMX, such that the indirect effects were only found in dyads with lower LMX, but not in dyads with higher LMX. Theoretical contributions and practical implications for managers and organizations were also discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Moderating Role Of Lmxmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: The Moderating Role Of Lmxmentioning

confidence: 96%

Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Pan

Lin

2016

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Foa and colleagues (e.g., Foa & Foa, 1980), resources fall within a circumplex defined by two continua (or bipolar dimensions): particularistic-universalistic and tangible-intangible. The particularistic-universalistic continuum is most relevant to our current paper; resources fall from the particularistic area of the circumplex to the universalistic area in roughly the following order: love (which we term friendship because it is more applicable to the work context; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010), status, services, information, goods, and money (Foa, 1971;Foa & Foa). Foa argues that individuals prefer to exchange particularistic (specialized) resources with a specific partner, whereas they are generally comfortable exchanging universalistic (or common) resources with any partner (cf.…”

Section: A Brief Overview Of Contemporary Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling the Networking Phenomenon

Porter

Woo

2015

Journal of Management

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared to the extensive research that has investigated the structures of social relationships (i.e., social networks), relatively little research attention has been geared towards understanding how and why individuals initiate, build, and maintain social networks (i.e., networking) from a psychological perspective. The objective of this review is to shed light on the dynamic, psychological processes at the center of individuals' discretionary, professional relationship development. The diffuse networking literature in the field of management is reviewed and organized into four primary research streams. On the basis of insights from this review, we propose a dynamic, psychological model of how and why individuals strategically network, which marries social exchange and expectancy theories with the concept of relational schema to explain the networking phenomenon across dyadic and intraindividual levels. This conceptual model posits that a networking interaction, construed as an exchange of resources within a given network relationship at a certain stage of relationship maturity, affects the relational schemas of those involved in the interaction and that each networking partner's relational schema influences each partner's perceptions of his or her network relationship and guides individual decisions to network with a specific network contact. The aim of this review is to lay a theoretical foundation for investigating strategic networking from a dynamic, psychological perspective.

show abstract

“…As one example, we suggest the incorporation of utilitarianism into the operationalization of ethical leadership might enable better predictions of important leader-level outcomes. Such research would be in line with Fehr et al (2015) recommendation to ''expand measures of ethical leadership to include a broader array of moral foundations'' and would be welcome among studies of ethical leadership (see Rubin et al 2010) and leadership more generally (e.g., Wilson et al 2010). We believe that supplementing the philosophical make-up of ethical leadership by incorporating utilitarianism would better reflect top-down perspectives, which along with considering the view from above should allow the construct to better predict leader-level outcomes.…”

Section: Empirical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations

Letwin

Folger

et al. 2015

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substantial research demonstrates that ethical leaders improve a broad range of outcomes for their employees, but considerably less attention has been devoted to the performance and success of the leaders themselves. The present study explores the extent to which being ethical relates to leaders' performance and promotability. We address this question by examining ethical leadership from the two ethical perspectives most common in Western traditions-i.e., the ''right'' and the ''good''-and whether one might be more closely associated than the other with performance and promotability evaluations. Results from 117 employee-supervisor-manager triads show that supervisors with a deontological outlook are more likely to be seen as ethical leaders (given current conceptualizations of the construct) and that utilitarian leaders are more likely to earn higher performance evaluations (above these current conceptions). We discuss the implications of these findings for research on ethical leadership.

show abstract

What About the Leader in Leader-Member Exchange? The Impact of Resource Exchanges and Substitutability on the Leader.

Cited by 126 publications

References 32 publications

Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Untangling the Networking Phenomenon

The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About