Leader–member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter
Section snippets
Leader–member exchange theory
The earliest work on leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, for a review) contended that leaders develop differential relationships with their subordinates and categorize them as either cadres (in-group) or hired hands (out-group). The theoretical premise was that, in comparison to other leadership theories in which leaders treated all subordinates in the supervisory group in the same manner with an average leadership style (ALS), LMX was unique because it examined
Sample and subjects
The research setting for this study was a mid-sized media services provider located in a small metropolitan area in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Data were collected from 25 managers and their 110 subordinates. Subordinates were asked to participate in providing feedback about their relationship with their superior as part of a broader management development program. We emphasized that the subordinate feedback was critical to superiors' long-term comprehensive development within the
Descriptive statistics and raw correlations
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas for each variable of interest are presented in Table 1. All measures were adequate for use in subsequent analyses. In Table 1 the raw score correlations, based on the total degrees of freedom in the sample, indicate a strong positive relationship (rtotal = .54) for perceived subordinate performance and leader–member exchange from the subordinate's perspective. From the superior's perspective, it was rtotal = .42. We also found a significant
LMX–performance relationship
Leader–member exchange relationships and the LMX–performance association can either be expressed as a within-groups model or a between-dyads model (see Dansereau, 1995, Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995, Yammarino et al., 1997). As Schriesheim et al., 1998, Schriesheim et al., 1999 have indicated, tests of LMX under either of these conditions have been inadequate.
As a result, the purpose of this research was four-fold: first, to specify and empirically test the operational level(s) of analysis of LMX;
References (51)
A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire
Leadership Quarterly
(1995)- et al.
Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufficient?
Leadership Quarterly
(2006) - et al.
Leadership: The multiple-level approaches
Leadership Quarterly
(1995) - et al.
Individualized leadership — A new multi-level approach
Leadership Quarterly
(1995) - et al.
Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective
Leadership Quarterly
(1995) - et al.
Within- and between-entity analysis in multilevel research: A leadership example using single level analysis and boundary conditions (MRA)
Leadership Quarterly
(2002) - et al.
Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices
Leadership Quarterly
(1999) - et al.
The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: a selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration
Leadership Quarterly
(2001) - et al.
Reciprocity in manager–subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes
Journal of Management
(2003) - et al.
Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review
Leadership Quarterly
(2005)