ABSTRACT
The norm of reciprocity is important in the formation, survival and effectiveness of leader member exchange. The use of one dimensional leader member exchange in a model containing the two constructs has been questioned by researchers. Recently, a multi-dimensional factor structure for leader member exchange was tested, but has not been properly revalidated. This study revalidated the multi-dimensional factor structure for leader member exchange and reciprocity using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Thereafter, a structural equation model of the relationships involving the dimensions of the constructs and job satisfaction was estimated. Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed 4-factor and 5-factor structures for leader member exchange and reciprocity, respectively. The estimated structural equation model confirmed the following: the positive relationship job satisfaction has with each of three dimensions of the leader member exchange and that the five dimensions of reciprocity are antecedents of leader member exchange. Immediacy, equivalence and self motive affected the dimensions of leader member exchange negatively, while other and mutual interest affected the dimensions positively. The relationships that four dimensions of reciprocity have with job satisfaction are fully mediated by the leader member exchange relationship. Equivalence has direct and indirect relationships with job satisfaction. The study concluded that a one dimensional leader member exchange does not reflect the various forms of relationship a leader may have with his/her subordinates and that though reciprocity is important in the formation and maintenance of leader member exchange, some forms of reciprocity will negatively affect the quality of the relationship.
PDF Abstract XML References Citation
How to cite this article
DOI: 10.3923/ajsr.2010.39.50
URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajsr.2010.39.50
INTRODUCTION
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) describes the quality of the relationship an employee has with his/her manager. Employees with high quality LMX relationship are classified as in-group members, while those with low quality LMX relationship are regarded as out-group members (Dansereau et al., 1975). In-group members receive certain benefits from their leaders that are not made available to out-group members (Truckenbrodt, 2000). Leader-member exchange is negatively related to turnover (Graen et al., 1982), positively related to organizational commitment and career satisfaction (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Truckenbrodt, 2000) job satisfaction and wellbeing (Hooper and Martin, 2008; Truckenbrodt, 2000). Most studies conceptualized LMX as one-dimensional (Asgari et al., 2008; Erdogan et al., 2004; Golden and Veiga, 2008; Hooper and Martin, 2008) except the works of Lo et al. (2006) and Liden and Maslyn (1998) that justified a multi-dimensional LMX. However, role and social exchange theories justify the multi-dimensional structure for LMX made up of contribution, loyalty, affect and professional respect (Frone et al., 1992; Liden and Maslyn, 1998; Lo et al., 2006).
Social exchange process is critical to the formation, survival and effectiveness of LMX (Liden et al., 1997). In social exchange relationship, people bring in resources and expect to receive needed resources in exchange (Graen and Cushman, 1975; Graen and Scandura, 1987). Thus, reciprocity plays major role in the survival of any exchange relationship, such as LMX relationship (Gouldner, 1960). The fact that individuals can make demand on how favour given can be reciprocated (Gouldner, 1960; Simmel, 1950; Thornwald, 1932) justifies multi-dimensional structure for reciprocity made up if equivalence, immediacy, self interest, other interest and mutual interest (Gouldner, 1960; Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003). The dimensions of reciprocity have different effects on the quality of a one-dimensional LMX (Goulder, 1960; Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003). However, there is still a gap in the study of LMX because there is no study found the presented LMX and reciprocity as multi-dimensional in the same model.
The factorial validations of structures of the norm of reciprocity and LMX were done with participants from Philippines and USA, respectively. Gouldner (1960) argued that the norm of reciprocity may operate differently in different cultures. Nigeria is a high power distance culture, while United State of America is low power distance culture. The difference in the power distance between the two countries may produce differences in the understanding of LMX relationships in the two countries. Thus, there is need to test the factorial structure identified for the norm of reciprocity and LMX using Nigerian participants. The first aim of the current study is to confirm the multi-dimensional factorial structures of the norm reciprocity and LMX using Nigerian participants. The second aim is to develop a structural equation model of the relationships among the various dimensions of reciprocity and LMX and how they jointly affect job satisfaction.
Contribution is the perception of the amount of work and the quality of work (Dienesch and Liden, 1986) that each member of the dyadic relationship brings into the dyadic relationship. In a contribution relationship, subordinates contribute excellent performance in exchange for physical resources such as budgetary support, materials, equipment, information and attractive task assignments (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). These resources will likely enhance subordinates performance on the job and job satisfaction. Loyalty is the expression of support for members of the dyadic relationship for each other based on only goals and personal characteristics (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). Individuals pursue various goals within and outside the work environment. For example, some employees may have the goal to always seek meaningful assignments to enhance self worth. If employees are perceived as loyal members of a work group, their leaders may assign important tasks that require independence and responsibility to them. The assignment and successful completion of the task will enhance self worth and lead to positive job evaluation. Affect identifies the mutual affection the dyadic members have for each other based on interpersonal attraction rather than work or professional values (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). The basis of an affective relationship is outside the work environment, thus, affect may not be directly related to job satisfaction. Liden and Maslyn (1998) defined professional respect as the degree to which each member of the dyad had built a reputation, within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his/her line of work. Leaders reputation can serve as exchange resource that will not only enhance subordinates performance, but may also likely enhance subordinates job satisfaction. For example, leaders reputation among other leaders will act as a resource that a subordinate can utilize while seeking for favour within the organization.
Equivalence affects the quality of one dimensional LMX (Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003) and also plays major role in social interaction between individuals (Sparrowe, 1998). Individuals in contribution LMX relationship may demand equivalence in reciprocity. This is because individuals can estimate the value of their contribution to a relationship. However, equivalence should not be demanded in effect, loyalty and professional respect LMX relationships, because values cannot be easily attributed to the exchange resources in these forms of relationships. Making this demand may result in low quality relationships.
Sahlins (1972) described immediacy as the time lapse between receiving goods or resources and when the recipient reciprocates. It is generally acceptable that the time lapse between receiving resources and reciprocating should not be indefinite (Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003). The various forms of LMX relationships may not be affected when the time of pay back is within an acceptable time frame. For example, if individuals receive benefit from an exchange relationship whenever they need help, they may not place imp ortance on the exact time of reciprocating the favour given. However, outside this time limit, immediacy will be negatively related to the dimensions of LMX. Interest represents the motive behind the dyadic relationship. The gratification of self can be the motive behind dyadic relationship. Self gratification will be negatively related to all the forms of LMX relationship. Also, others and mutual interest are possible motives for engaging in dyadic relationship. Others and mutual interest motive may be positively related to all the forms of LMX relationship. The following hypotheses are tested:
• | H1:Contribution is positively related to job satisfaction |
• | H2:Loyalty is positively related to job satisfaction |
• | H3:There is no relationship between affect and job satisfaction |
• | H4:Professional respect is positively related to job satisfaction |
• | H5:Equivalence is positively related to contribution LMX relationship |
• | H6:Equivalence is negatively related to affect LMX relationship |
• | H7:Equivalence is negatively related to loyalty LMX relationship |
• | H8:Equivalence is negatively related to professional respect LMX relationship |
• | H9:Immediacy is negatively related to contribution LMX relationship |
• | H10:Immediacy is negatively related to affect LMX relationship |
• | H11:Immediacy is negatively related to loyalty LMX relationship |
• | H12:Immediacy is negatively related to professional respect LMX relationship |
• | H13:Self interest is negatively related to contribution LMX relationship |
• | H14:Self interest is negatively related to affect LMX relationship |
• | H15:Self interest is negatively related to loyalty LMX relationship |
• | H16:Self interest is negatively related to professional respect LMX relationship |
• | H17:Other interest is positively related to contribution LMX relationship |
• | H18:Other interest is positively related to affect LMX relationship |
• | H19:Other interest is positively related to loyalty LMX relationship |
• | H20:Other interest is positively related to professional respect LMX relationship |
• | H21:Mutual interest is positively related to contribution LMX relationship |
• | H22:Mutual interest is positively related to affect LMX relationship |
• | H23:Mutual interest is positively related to loyalty LMX relationship |
• | H24:Mutual interest is positively related to professional respect LMX relationship |
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Analytical and Statistical Procedure
The study utilized cross sectional data acquired through self-report questionnaires. Twenty part time MBA students were recruited to participate in the study. Each student was given 50 questionnaires to distribute to randomly selected employees in his/her organization. The students are employed in the banking, insurance and information technology sectors of the Nigerian economy. The study was conducted between December 2008 and June 2009. The participants were advised to disregard any part of the questionnaire that they were not comfortable with. A statement in the questionnaire assured the participants of the confidentiality of information provided. Each participant was instructed to put the filled out questionnaire in an addressed envelop and seal same prior to delivery. Six hundred filled questionnaires were returned which translates to 60% return rate. After removing the questionnaires with substantial missing data, the final usable questionnaires were 540. Sixty nine percent of the participants are either junior or senior employees, 56% are male (302) and the average age of participants is between 30 and 40 years. The average organizational tenure of participants is between 5 and 10 years, while 46% are married (248). One hundred and fifty questionnaires were randomly selected from the total questionnaires received and used for the exploratory factor analyses, while the remaining 390 questionnaires were used for the confirmatory factor analysis. However, the testing of the model was based on the entire 540 questionnaires.
The validation of the factor structures for LMX and reciprocity was achieved in two steps. The first step involved exploratory factor analysis. Four-factor structure was stated for LMX based on the work of Liden and Maslyn (1998) while a five-factor structure was stated for reciprocity based on the work of Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003). Factors extracted satisfied two criteria, namely, they had eigenvalues greater or equal to one and were justified by scree-plot as necessary (Preacher and MacCallum, 2003). Any Item with less than 0.4 loading on its factor, or has cross loading more than 0.3 on another factor was removed (Koufteros et al., 2002). The second step involved confirmatory factor analysis using Analysis of Moments of Structure (AMOS) software. In performing the confirmatory factor analysis for LMX one to five factor structures were tested. Affect and loyalty formed a factor, while contribution and professional respect formed another factor in the two-factor model. This was done to test the factor structures identified by Lo et al. (2006). The three factor model tested the structure obtained in the exploratory factor analysis, while the four factor model was based on the work of Liden and Maslyn (1998). One to five factor structures were tested for the reciprocity construct. These structures captured all possible combinations of each of the dimensions of reciprocity.
The model in Fig. 1 was tested with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), technique using AMOS software. The SEM has two components, the measurement and structural components. The measurement component gives the relationship each variable has with the items used in measuring the variable. The fit of the measurement model was established in the confirmatory factor analyses. The structural component gives the relationship between the variables in the model tested. The estimation of the structural component is based on maximum likelihood method of analyses. The dimensions of reciprocity were allowed to co-vary, while residual variances were allowed for the LMX dimensions. The adequacy of model fit was ascertained using Chi-square test (χ2), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Chi-square to Degree of freedom ratio (χ2/df). A properly fit model must have the following fit characteristics: RMSEA < 0.08; chi-square to degree of freedom ration <3.5; GFI > 0.9 and CFI >0.9 (Bentler, 1990; Bollen, 1989; Bentler and Bonnett, 1980).
Fig. 1: | LMX, reciprocity and job satisfaction relationship hypothesized model. AFF: Affect; LOY: Loyalty; CON: Contribution; PROF: Professional respect; IMM: Immediacy; EQV: Equivalence; SELF: Self interest; OTT: Others interest; MUTT: Mutual interest; JS: Job satisfaction |
Measures
The questionnaire has two parts. Five demographic variables were captured in the first part. These are job status, gender, age, organizational tenure and marital status. The second part contains 71 questions that measured the 10 study variables and other variables not used in this study. All the measures were obtained using 6-point Likert scale that were scored such that high figure reflected high value of each construct. The LMX measures were taken from the work of Liden and Maslyn (1998) while the reciprocity measures were taken from the work of Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003).
Contribution
This is a 3-item scale that measures the perception of the current level of work related activity put into the relationship by the participants. Contribution is the amount of work and quality of work that is provided by each member in the dyadic relationship (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). The reliability obtained by Liden and Maslyn (1998) is 0.74, compared to 0.72 obtained in the current study.
Affect
This is a 3-item scale that measures the affection each member of the relationship has for the other based on interpersonal attraction and not work related variables. Affect identifies the mutual affection the dyadic members have for each other based on personal attraction rather than work or professional values (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). The reliability obtained by Liden and Maslyn (1998) is 0.90, compared to 0.70 obtained in the current study.
Loyalty
This is a 3-item scale that measures the expression of public support for the goals and personal character of a dyad member by another member. Loyalty is the expression of support the dyadic members offer each other and is based on only goals and personal characteristics (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). The reliability obtained by Liden and Maslyn (1998) is 0.74, compared to 0.73 obtained in the current study.
Professional Respect
This is a 3-item scale that measures the perception of the internal and external reputation built by each member of dyadic relationship. Professional respect gauges the level of internal and external reputation of excellence built by members in the dyadic relationship (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). The reliability obtained by Liden and Maslyn (1998) is 0.89, compared to 0.81 obtained in the current study.
Equivalence
This 2-item scale that measures equivalence reflects the extent to which the exchanges involved in the dyadic relationship are of equal values. Equivalence is the extent to which the favours received by individuals are equal to the favour he/she gives back (Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003). The reliability obtained by Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) is 0.71, compared to 0.74 obtained in the current study.
Immediacy
This is a 3-item scale that measures the amount of time between the time when favour was given and reciprocated by individuals in the dyadic relationship. Immediacy is the time lapse between receiving goods or resources and when the recipient reciprocates (Sahlins, 1972). The reliability obtained by Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) is 0.75, compared to 0.70 obtained in the current study.
Interest
Interest measures the motive of each person in the dyadic relationship. The motive has three dimensions of self, others and mutual. The self has 2 items; other interest has 3 items, while mutual interest has 4 items. The reliabilities obtained by Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003) are 0.79, 0.79 and 0.84 for self, others and mutual interests, respectively. The reliabilities obtained in the current study are 0.72, 0.70 and 0.71 for self, others and mutual interests, respectively.
Job Satisfaction
The 5-item measure used was taken from the work of Anderson et al. (2002). It measures overall job satisfaction without considering individual work aspects. Cronbach alpha obtained in the above study is 0.82, while it is 0.80 in the current study.
Control Variables
The demographic variables were measured as follows: Job status 1. Junior; 2. Senior; 3. Supervisor and 4. Manager); Gender as 1. Male and 2. Female, Age as 1. under 30 years; 2. 31-40 years; 3. 41-50 years; 4. 51-60 years and 6. above 60 years, Tenure measures as 1. less than 5 years; 2. 5-10 years; 3. 11-15 years; 4. 16-20 years and 5. above 20 years, Marital status as 1. Married; 2. Single; 3. Others.
RESULTS
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics, correlation, variance extracted and Cronbach alpha for all the study variables. The study variables have acceptable reliability as shown by Cronbach alpha of 0.7 and greater. Two dimensions of reciprocity, immediacy and equivalence, have low means of 2.39 and 2.36, respectively. Most of the correlations in the table are significant and thus, reflect initial support for the hypothesized relationships in the model tested.
Table 1: | Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlation, variance extracted and Cronbach alpha |
AFF = Affect; LOY = Loyalty; CON = Contribution; PROF = Professional respect; IMM = Immediacy; EQV = Equivalence; SELF = Self interest; OTT = Others interest; MUTT = Mutual interest; JS = Job satisfaction; Var. extr. = Variance extracted **p<0.01; *p<0.05 |
Table 2: | Exploratory factor analysis results of the LMX items: oblique rotation, pattern matrix |
Bold = p>0.05 |
As indicated in Table 2, exploratory factor analyses extracted three factors that accounted for 61% of the variance in the 11 items of the LMX. The items for affect and loyalty loaded on a factor, while contribution and professional respect items loaded on their hypothesized factors. One item was dropped from the contribution dimension because it cross- loaded on other factors. The 3-factor structure obtained in this study is different from the 4-factor structure extracted by Liden and Maslyn (1998). As indicated on Table 3, exploratory factor analyses for reciprocity extracted four factors that accounted for 58% of the variance in 14 items. The items for immediacy and equivalence loaded on one factor, while the items for each motive dimension loaded on their hypothesized factors.
From the results of the confirmatory factor analyses in Table 4, the three and four factor models have acceptable fit parameters. However, the Chi-square difference test indicated that there is significant difference between the fit parameters for three and four factor models. Since the fit indices for the 4-factor model are superior to those of the 3-factor model, the former was judged to have a better fit. The correlation between the affect and loyalty dimensions is 0.75, which indicates that they have some unique variance and should be treated as separate factors. From the results in Table 5, Chi square difference test indicated that a 5-factor model has best fit. The correlations among the dimensions are between 0.11 and 0.71, indicating that they have unique variance despite their close association.
Table 3: | Exploratory factor analysis results of the Reciprocity items: Oblique rotation, Pattern matrix |
IMM: Immediacy; EQV: Equivalence; MATT: Mutual interest; OTT: Others interest; SELF: Self interest. Bold: p>0.05 |
Table 4: | Summary of confirmatory factor analyses for LMX |
1-Factor: One-dimensional LMX; 2-Factor: Combines affect and loyalty, contribution and professional respect; 3-Factor: Combines affect and loyalty, Contribution and professional respect separate; 4-Factor: Affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect. *p<0.05 |
Table 5: | Summary of confirmatory factor analyses for Reciprocity |
1-Factor: One-dimensional reciprocity; 3-Factor: Combine immediacy and equivalence, self interest; 4-Factor: Combine immediacy and equivalence, self, others and mutual interest separate; 5-Factor: Immediacy, equivalence, self interest, others interest and mutual interest. *p<0.05 |
The fit indices for the estimated model in Fig. 2 are χ2/df = 2.523, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.053. They all satisfy the set criteria for a well fit model. Only the significant paths are included in Fig. 2. The following results are obtained as shown in Fig. 2: the variables in the model explained 31% of the variance in job satisfaction, 19% of the variance in affect and 14% of the variance in loyalty, 15% of the variance in contribution and 15% of the variance in professional respect. Only the equivalence dimension has direct and indirect effect on job satisfaction. The effects of the other dimensions of reciprocity on job satisfaction were fully mediated by the dimensions of LMX. Job satisfaction has positive relationships with contribution (0.22) and professional respect (0.14) as hypothesized and is related to affect (0.27) contrary to the no relationship hypothesis stated. Its relationship with loyalty is not significant. Hence, hypotheses 1 and 4 are supported, while 2 and 3 are not supported. Equivalency is negatively related to loyalty (-0.14), affect (-0.11) and contribution (-0.16), but is not significantly related to professional respect. Hence, hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 are supported, while 8 is not supported. Immediacy is negatively related to contribution (-0.12) and professional respect (-0.15), but not significantly related to affect and loyalty.
Fig. 2: | LMX, reciprocity and job satisfaction relationship estimated model. AFF: Affect; LOY: Loyalty; CON: Contribution; PROF: Professional respect; IMM: Immediacy; EQV: Equivalence; SELF: Self interest; OTT: Others interest; MUTT: Mutual interest; JS: Job satisfaction. χ2 = 113.551*, df = 45, χ2/df = 2.523, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.95, RMESA = 0.053, p = 0.315, *p<0.05 |
Hence, hypotheses 9 and 12 are supported, while 10 and 11 are not supported. Self interest is negatively related to affect (-0.24), loyalty (-0.22) and professional respect (-0.14), while its relationship with contribution is not significant. Thus, hypotheses 14, 15 and 16 are supported, while 13 is not supported. Other interest is positively related to contribution (0.14), while its relationships with affect, loyalty and professional respect are not significant. Hence, hypothesis 17 is supported, while 18 to 20 are not supported. Mutual interest is positively related to affect (0.35), loyalty (0.30), contribution (0.26) and professional respect (0.33); hence hypotheses 21 to 24 are supported. Modification indices indicated that model fit can be improved by estimating a direct relationship from equivalency to job satisfaction. This relationship was not initially hypothesized, but found to be negative and significant (-0.21). In all 16 of the 24 hypotheses stated are supported.
DISCUSSION
The mean for immediacy is 2.39, while that of equivalence is 2.36. These means indicate that only few of the participants indicated they would demand immediate and equivalent reciprocation of favour given. The least preferred motive for LMX relationship is self motive with mean of 3.03 compared to 3.24 and 3.91 for others and mutual motives, respectively. The correlations in Table 1 indicate that the study variables share some common variance, but have substantial unique variances that qualify them as separate factors.
Exploratory factor analyses identified a 3-factor structure for LMX, while confirmatory factor analyses identified 4-factor structure. However, the result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is superior, since CFA offers a means of comparing one or more competing models. The CFA indicated that 3-factor and 4-factor models fit the acquired data, but the fit of the 4-factor model is superior to that of the 3-factor model. The 4-factor structure for LMX agrees with the result obtained by Liden and Maslyn (1998), but is contrary to the 2-factor structure identified by Lo et al. (2006). The latter study has two problems, namely, it performed only exploratory factor analyses and utilized insufficient sample size. Consequently, it can not be an effective comparison for the result obtained in the current study. Exploratory factor analyses extracted four factors for reciprocity, while CFA indicated a 5-factor structure. The five factor structure agrees with the work of Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2003).
Affect relationship is defined as based on interpersonal characteristics and not work related variables. Thus, it was expected that no relationship would be found between it and job satisfaction, since job satisfaction is based on work related variables. However, the positive relationship obtained may have resulted from individuals taking the non-work bonding to the work place, hence, the positive evaluation of job experiences. The result obtained in this study proves the suggestion by Turban and Jones (1988) and Pulakos and Wexley (1983) that LMX will mediate the relationship between affect and work outcomes. Loyalty relationship is defined as based on goals and personal characteristics of the individuals in the LMX relationship. The lack of relationship between loyalty and job satisfaction may point to the fact that the goals and characteristics which are the basis for loyalty relationship are not work related. For example, individuals may be loyal to each other because they have a common goal of pursuing certain social class membership. They will defend each other in situations where their mutual interest is threatened. Thus, loyalty may be demonstrated in the work environment, but job satisfaction will not be affected since favourable work experience is not involved. High contribution relationship attracts more challenging assignments from the leader and successful completion of these tasks will enhance positive rating of job experiences and high job satisfaction (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). Professional respect is based on the reputation individuals in a dyadic relationship built within and outside the work setting. These reputations attract social capital, which are beneficial to the members of the dyadic relationship. The social capitals may be important in enhancing job experiences and lead to positive job evaluation (Goodwin et al., 2009).
Short-term norm of reciprocity is the standard of relationships based on economic terms (Goodwin et al., 2009). Immediacy and equivalent are aspects of short-term reciprocity norms, where individuals are concerned with what they get from the relationship. Such thinking does not produce high quality relationship. This justifies the negative effects of immediacy and equivalency on the dimensions of LMX. Low quality relationship is associated with self motives. Individuals in this relationship are always looking out for benefits for self even at the expense of other participating individual. This accounts for the negative effects of self motive on the LMX dimensions. Self motive is the only motive for LMX relationship that has negative effects on LMX dimensions. Mutual motive affects the four LMX dimensions and the magnitude of its effect is very high compared to the effects of the other motives. According to Goodwin et al. (2009) mutual motive will lead to social relationship which can be characterized as communal. In communal relationships people look out for a win-win situation in the distribution of benefits. Other motive is the highest form of motive and reflects when individuals are involved and remain in a relationship because they feel it is the best thing to do. People will remain in relationship even when they have to give up something personally. It is a transcendental form of motive, which goes beyond self and mutual interest. Individuals ruled by other motive are interested in the needs of the other person in a dyadic relationship, so as to win his/her trust to continue in the relationship. It produces a high quality relationship and should be desired in all LMX relationships. Other motive has positive effect on only the contribution dimension of LMX. This relationship may reflect the fact that in contribution relationship, one is providing work oriented activity that is beneficial to the other member. In this situation, it becomes very imperative that the needs of others should be the driving motive.
The current study was based on cross sectional data; hence, causal inference must be cautiously made. An alternative model was not tested and so the model identified in the current study fits the data, but may not be the only model that fits the data. However, the modification indices showed that the model fit can not be improved by making any changes to the stated relationships in the accepted model.
CONCLUSION
The difference in the effects of the LMX dimensions in the estimated model, shows that a one dimensional LMX will not capture the whole range of forms of relationship that a leader can have with his/her subordinates. Social interaction between people is governed by the norm of reciprocity. However, the form of reciprocity will have effect on the quality of the relationship developed. Reciprocity that is based on immediacy and equivalence principle will harm any form of relationship. The motive behind any relationship varies from the self to the transcendental other motive. The self motive breeds low quality relationship, since it is perceived as someone taking advantage of another person. The mutual and other motives breed high quality relationships. These should be encouraged in all forms of leader member exchange relationship. The transcendental motive, the other motive, affected only contribution dimension. However, it must be encouraged in all the forms of relationships within the work setting. Entering a relationship with this motive will make a person to accept that the wellbeing of the other person should have priority (Gini, 1995).
REFERENCES
- Anderson, S.E., B.S. Coffer and R.T. Byerly, 2002. Formal organisational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job related outcomes. J. Manage., 28: 787-810.
Direct Link - Asgari, A., A.D. Silong, A. Ahmad and B.A. Samah, 2008. The relationship between leader-member exchange, organizational inflexibility, perceived organizational support, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behaviour. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 2: 138-145.
Direct Link - Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull., 107: 238-246.
CrossRefPubMedDirect Link - Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. 1st Edn., John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA., ISBN-13: 9780471011712, Pages: 514.
Direct Link - Frone, M.R., C.R. Russell and M.L. Cooper, 1992. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of work-family interface. J. Applied Psychol., 77: 65-78.
CrossRef - Golden, T.D. and J.F. Veiga, 2008. The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. Leadership Q., 19: 77-88.
Direct Link - Goodwin, V.L., V.M. Bowler and J.L. Whittington, 2009. A social network perspective on LMX relationships: Accounting for the instrumental value of leader and follower networks. J. Manage., 35: 954-980.
Direct Link - Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Soc. Rev., 25: 161-178.
Direct Link - Graen, G., R.C. Liden and W. Hoel, 1982. Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. J. Applied Psychol., 67: 868-872.
CrossRef - Hooper, D.T. and B. Martin, 2008. Beyond personal leader-Member exchange quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. Leadership Q., 19: 20-30.
Direct Link - Koufteros, X.A., M.A. Vonderembse and W.J. Doll, 2002. Examining the competitive capabilities of manufacturing firms. Struct. Eq. Model., 9: 256-282.
CrossRefDirect Link - Liden, R.C. and J.M. Maslyn, 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manage., 24: 43-72.
CrossRefDirect Link - Preacher, K.J. and R.C. MacCallum, 2003. Repairing Tom Swifts electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2: 13-43.
Direct Link - Truckenbrodt, Y.B., 2000. The relationship between leader-member exchange and commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Rev. Q. Summer, 1: 233-244.
Direct Link - Turban, D.A. and A.P. Jones, 1988. Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects and mechanisms. J. Applied Psychol., 73: 228-234.
Direct Link - Uhl-Bien, M. and J.M. Maslyn, 2003. Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationship: Components, configurations and outcomes. J. Manage., 24: 511-532.
Direct Link