LMX Research
-
Upload
fabio-mousinho-pinto -
Category
Documents
-
view
83 -
download
2
Transcript of LMX Research
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) RESEARCH: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
OF THEORY, MEASUREMENT, AND DATA-ANALYTIC PRACTICES
Chester A. Schriesheim” University of Miami
Stephanie L. Castro Louisiana State University
Claudia C. Cogliser Oregon State University
Research conducted since the construct of leader-member exchange (LMX) was first investigated in 1972 is reviewed with respect to the theoretical, measurement, and analytic adequacy of LMX studies. It is shown that conceptual definitions of LMX and its subdimensions have evolved over time, often with little reason or rationale given for changes. Likewise, the measures employed to assess LMX have varied widely and have included an almost bewildering array of diverse item content. Finally, LMX research has rarely examined the level of analysis at which its findings hold. All of these shortcomings lead to the conclusion that we may know less than we should about fundamental leader-member exchange processes and that future research must be conducted with greater attention devoted to the key issues outlined in this review.
The relationship-based approach to leadership research developed by Graen, Dan- sereau, and colleagues over two decades ago (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) has undergone an interesting metamorphosis since its infancy. This approach was initially termed the “Vertical Dyad Linkage” (VDL) model of leadership (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975), and it subsequently evolved along
* Direct all correspondence to: Chester A. Schriesheim, Department of Management, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, 414 Jenkins Building, Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145; e-mail: chet@ miamiedu.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(l), 63-113. Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843
64 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 109’)
two very different lines of development. The first branch of development from the early VDL approach appears to be most commonly called the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b), although it has sometimes been given other labels as well (e.g., the “Leadership-Making” model: cf., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). The second branch of VDL development has been the recent “Individualized Leadership” (IL) model of Dansereau and colleagues (1995b), which is quite different from the LMX approach and is briefly discussed later in this review.
A recent meta-analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997) has shown that interest in the first branch of the VDL approach, the LMX model, has been increasing substantially over the years, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in the number of scholarly papers recently produced in this domain (see the first line in Table 3 for a summary of LMX studies over time). The review by Gerstner and Day (1997) also shows that LMX research has been quite fruitful, as LMX has been a significant correlate of such variables as increased subordinate satisfaction (e.g., Graen et al., 1982b), increased subordinate performance (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas, 1982) enhanced subordinate career outcomes (e.g., Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984). and decreased propensity to quit (e.g., Vecchio, 1982).
However, as we demonstrate in this review, there are some fundamental problems related to the validity of the LMX construct, its measurement, and the data analytic procedures which have been used in the majority of LMX investigations to date. In particular, the construct has some basic definitional problems, the measures used to assess LMX have varied substantially without explanation, and the analytic procedures utilized have generally not been aligned with the theory being proposed and tested. These issues draw into question the usefulness of any substantively oriented synthesis of extant LMX literature. However, our intent is not to criticize early or more recent reviews, but rather to highlight the fundamental issues which are raised regarding the LMX construct and its associated research.
BACKGROUND
Summarizing the evolution of LMX theory over nearly 30 years, Graen and Uhl- Bien (1995) recently suggested that LMX theory has passed through four stages, with each stage building on the stages preceding it (in terms of theoretical clarification of the LMX process). Stage One research found that leaders developed differentiated relationships with their subordinates, a departure from the prevailing approach to leadership which assumed that leaders displayed consistent behavior toward all subordinates in their work units (the so-called “Average Leadership Style” or ALS model). The second stage focused on these different relationships the leader had within the work unit and began the explication of the nomological network sur- rounding the LMX construct; the majority of LMX research has been conducted with a Stage Two focus (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The Leadership Making model (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) shifted LMX research into Stage Three, and moved the emphasis from the leader’s differentiation of subordinates to “how they may work with each person on a one-on-one basis to develop a partnership with each of them” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 229). The
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 6.5
final stage broadens the scope from the dyad to larger collectives, exploring how dyadic relationships are organized within and beyond the organizational system.
Despite the apparent high level of scholarly interest in LMX theory and the description of the theory’s evolution offered by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), as mentioned earlier, serious concerns about this approach still remain. In particular, a number of scholars have expressed reservations regarding the adequacy of LMX theory (e.g., Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a; Dienesch & Liden, 1986). the adequacy of LMX measures which have been employed in LMX studies (e.g., Barge & Schlueter, 1991, Yukl, 1994) and the appropriateness of the methodologies which have been used for data analysis in LMX research (e.g., Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995).
Much of this concern has arisen from the fact that the theoretical conceptualiza- tion and operational measurement of the LMX construct have evolved since its inception (Yukl, 1994). Additionally, we believe that it is not unreasonable to take issue with the assertion that development of the LMX approach has followed as orderly and chronological a progression as Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) portray. The four-stage model presents an overview of the progression of LMX theory through various stages of development; we maintain that the development of the theory within each of its stages of development is equally if not more important. Additionally, while Graen and Uhl-Bien have categorized various LMX studies, it is difficult to follow the development of the construct (i.e., the ideas) from their presentation. For example, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s discussion of Stages One, Two, and Three all contain references to papers within the same time frame (from 1984 to 1987). This chronological “mixing” of studies thus appears to contradict the assertion that the theoretical development of the LMX construct has been chrono- logically progressive and based on previous LMX theory: there does not appear to have been a clear development and refinement of ideas over time.
The above concerns notwithstanding, however, the evolution of LMX theory, measurement, and analytic methodology should be seen positively in general, partic- ularly as contrasted with “frozen” or “static” theory (cf., Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b), and we trace this evolution in some detail below. While the theory has been the subject of previous reviews and critiques (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984) we extend and update these prior reviews by systemati- cally evaluating the LMX approach from its birth to the present in a detailed, comprehensive manner. Before beginning our review, we should note that our purpose is not to be critical but to take stock of the past.
We thus review the state of the LMX approach with an eye toward advancing specific recommendations for future research. These are offered with the hope that they will serve to further stimulate increased interest in the study of leader-member exchange and, at the same time, help improve the quality of future work in this domain. (Parenthetically, we should also note that we rely heavily on tabular presen- tations to efficiently and concisely summarize a large amount of information in the
review which follows.) In reviewing LMX theory and research, we hope to focus on the development
of concepts related to LMX. Additionally, the various perspectives in the LMX literature on the issue of levels-of-analysis will be reviewed. The scales used to
66 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. t 0 No. 1 1999
measure LMX will also be examined, The multiple changes which have been made in LMX scales will be addressed, as will problems associated with these changes. The revisions made in the measure of LMX which Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) recommend indicate that the measurement problems which have existed since LMX (or VDL) was first introduced into the literature have not been corrected or ad- dressed. Finally, the extent to which studies have examined levels-of-analysis issues will be reviewed.
LMX THEORY, MEASURES, AND ANALYSES: A REVIEW
Develpoment of Theory About the LMX Construct
An oft-quoted statement by Kurt Lewin (1951) is that “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” Most scholars would agree that a “good” theory has as its basis precise concepts and definitions (upon which its propositions and bound- aries are established) and that its propositions should be clear and organized in a systematic way (Bacharach, 1989; Copi, 1954). This very preciseness of theoretical concepts creates an environment conducive to data gathering and thus promotes cumulative knowledge within a particular research domain (Achinstein, 1968; Osig- wey, 1989). Theoretical developments should include not only an acknowledgment of previous theory, but also a clear explication of the logic behind any new proposi- tions and an identification of the contribution of the new to the previous work (Sutton & Staw, 1995); a clear link between previous theory and new theory that is being proposed helps promote the cumulative development of ideas over time.
Evolution of LMX Theory In examining the adequacy of LMX theory, it is most straightforward to trace
the history of the LMX concept. In this regard, and as mentioned above, it is apparent that the theoretical content and dimensionality of LMX has varied consid- erably over the years. This is shown in Table 1; the works included there were uncovered by an extensive library search and by examining major reviews of LMX research for additional sources (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986: Gerstner & Day 1997; Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).
As shown in Table 1, the earliest LMX studies (Studies 1 through 5) were exploratory in nature and did not provide much detail with respect to theoretically defining the LMX construct or delineating its dimensionality (i.e., the subdomains or subareas which would be considered part of LMX). This exploratory nature is also reflected in the use of the Ohio State Consideration and Initiating Structure measures to assess aspects of LMX, a practice which subsequently was abandoned and no longer occurs.
Haga, Graen, and Dansereau (1974) broke with the earlier emphasis on explor- atory research and began the movement toward the most commonly employed treatments of LMX. The research by Dansereau et al. (1975) and Graen and Cashman (1975) then further deveioped the theoretical definition of LMX and began the evolution toward current measures of LMX. Graen (1976) proposed that
Stud
v
Tabl
e 1.
E
volu
tion
of L
MX
Def
initi
on
and
Dim
ensi
onal
ity
Theo
retic
al
Defin
ition
Subd
imen
sions
. Su
bdom
ains
. or
Su
bcon
tent
1.
Gra
en,
Dan
sere
au,
& M
inam
i (1
972a
) 2.
G
raen
, D
anse
reau
, &
Min
ami
(197
2b)
Spec
ial
inte
rdep
ende
nt
rela
tions
hip
of
lead
er
and
mem
ber
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
3,
Dan
sere
au,
Cas
hman
, &
Gra
en
(197
3)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
4.
Gra
en,
Dan
sere
au,
Min
ami,
& C
ashm
an
(197
3a)
5.
Gra
en,
Orri
s,
& Jo
hnso
n (1
973b
) 6.
H
aga,
Gra
en,
& D
anse
reau
(1
974)
7.
D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
975)
8.
G
raen
&
Cas
hman
(1
975)
9.
” G
raen
(1
976)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Non
e gi
ven
Non
e gi
ven
Inte
rper
sona
l ex
chan
ge
rela
tions
hip
Inte
rper
sona
l ex
chan
ge
rela
tions
hip
Exch
ange
re
latio
nshi
p
10.
Cas
hman
, D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
976)
Ex
chan
ge
rela
tions
hip
It.
Gra
en
& G
insb
urgh
(1
977)
Ex
chan
ge
patte
rn;
lead
er
acce
ptan
ce
12.
Gra
en,
Cas
hman
, G
insb
urgh
, &
Schi
eman
n (1
977)
13
. Sc
hiem
ann
(197
7)
Link
ing
pin
qual
ity
14.
Gra
en
& Sc
hiem
ann
(197
8)
Rol
e-m
akin
g;
dual
ex
chan
ge
rela
- tio
nshi
p Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e
Con
sider
atio
n an
d st
ruct
ure.
Con
side
ratio
n,
stru
ctur
e,
influ
ence
, do
min
ance
, an
d co
mpe
tenc
e.
Stru
ctur
e.
Con
sider
atio
n an
d st
ruct
ure.
Supe
rvis
or’s
at
tent
ion.
At
tent
ion.
In
terp
erso
nal
attra
ctio
n an
d lo
yalty
; at
tent
ion.
su
ppor
t, an
d se
nsiti
vity
. In
terp
erso
nal
attra
ctio
n an
d lo
yalty
. C
ompe
tenc
e,
inte
rper
sona
l sk
ill,
and
trust
(m
entio
ned
in g
ener
al);
supp
ort,
sens
itivi
ty,
and
trust
(m
entio
ned
as s
peci
fic s
ubas
pect
s).
Atte
ntio
n an
d se
nsiti
vity
.
Atte
ntio
n,
sens
itivi
ty,
supp
ort,
rew
ard,
an
d sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith
lead
er
rela
tions
. In
fluen
ce,
latit
ude,
su
ppor
t. at
tent
ion,
se
nsiti
vity
, an
d sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith
lead
er
and
rew
ards
. R
esou
rces
, su
ppor
t, an
d tru
st l
iste
d in
tex
t; tru
st,
latit
ude,
ex
chan
ge,
influ
ence
, an
d su
ppor
t de
pict
ed
in m
odel
. Se
nsiti
vity
, at
tent
ion,
in
form
atio
n,
and
supp
ort
(reci
proc
al
influ
ence
, ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l ex
chan
ge,
mut
ual
trust
, re
spec
t, an
d lik
ing,
an
d co
mm
on
fate
are
pre
sent
ed
as d
escr
iptiv
e of
hig
h qu
ality
re
la-
tions
hips
).
(conti
nued
)
Tabl
e 1.
(C
ontin
ued)
Jam
es,
Gen
t, H
ater
&
Cor
ay
(197
9)
Parti
cipa
tion
oppo
rtuni
ties
16.
Lide
n &
Gra
en
(198
0)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
17.
Schr
iesh
eim
(1
980)
D
yadi
c le
ader
be
havi
or
18.
Jam
es,
Hat
er,
& Jo
nes
(198
1)
Opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r in
fluen
ce:
cont
rol
IY.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Kate
rber
g &
Hor
n (1
981)
W
akab
ayas
hi,
Min
ami,
Has
him
oto,
Sa
no,
Gra
en,
& N
ovak
(19
81)
Dan
sere
au,
Alut
to,
Mar
kham
, &
Dum
as
(198
2)
Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oe1
(198
2a)
Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp
(198
2b)
Kim
&
Org
an
(198
2)
Gre
en,
Blan
k,
& Li
den
(198
3)
Non
e gi
ven
Verti
cal
exch
ange
Lead
ersh
ip
atte
ntio
n
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
rela
tions
hip
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
rela
tions
hip
24.
2.5.
N
onco
ntra
ctua
l so
cial
exc
hang
e Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e
26.
Nac
hman
, D
anse
reau
, &
Nau
ghto
n (1
983)
R
osse
& K
raut
(1
983)
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Cha
ssie
(19
84)
Verti
cal
exch
ange
qu
ality
Fu
kam
i &
Lars
on
(I 98
4)
Supe
rvis
ory
rela
tions
N
ovak
(19
84)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Scan
dura
&
Gra
en
(198
4)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Subd
irne~
s~~n
s,
Subd
omui
ns,
or S
ubco
nten
t
Supe
rvis
or’s
de
scrip
tion
of p
artic
ipat
ion.
op
portu
nitie
s,
and
deci
sion
- m
akin
g la
titud
e.
Trus
t, co
mpe
tenc
e,
and
mot
ivat
ion.
Le
ader
st
ruct
urin
g be
havi
or
and
lead
er
cons
ider
atio
n.
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude,
le
ader
at
tent
ion,
cl
osen
ess
of s
uper
visi
on,
and
use
of d
isci
plin
ary
actio
ns.
Con
sider
atio
n an
d in
itiatin
g st
ruct
ure.
As
sist
ance
and
sup
port,
un
ders
tand
ing.
la
titud
e,
auth
ority
. an
d in
form
atio
n.
11 d
imen
sion
s of
lead
ersh
ip
atte
ntio
n (n
ot
spec
ifica
lly d
iscu
ssed
).
Non
e di
scus
sed.
N
one
disc
usse
d.
Trus
t an
d in
fluen
ce
by n
orm
s of
soc
ial
exch
ange
. Ex
chan
ge
qual
ity,
lead
er’s
pers
onal
se
nsiti
vity
to
em
ploy
ee.
leve
l of
co
ntrib
utio
n of
em
ploy
ee,
and
lead
er’s
hand
hng
of p
erfo
rman
ce
prob
lem
s.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Sens
itivi
ty,
atte
ntio
n.
and
supp
ort
from
lea
ders
, m
ore
time
spen
t on
w
ork
activ
ities
, gr
eate
r w
illing
ness
to
con
tribu
te
idea
s to
uni
t. an
d gr
eate
r co
ngru
ence
be
twee
n pr
esen
t an
d de
sired
ro
le h
ehav
ior.
Supe
rvis
or
time.
atte
ntio
n,
mem
ber
loya
lty.
and
com
mitm
ent.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l as
sist
ance
. job
la
titud
e.
and
help
w
ith j
ob
prob
lem
s.
Supe
rvis
or
said
to
be a
ble
to o
ffer
latit
ude.
in
fluen
ce
in d
ecis
ion-
m
akin
g.
com
mun
icat
ions
, su
ppor
t, co
nfid
ence
. an
d co
nsid
erat
ion
Stud
y Th
eore
tical
D
efin
ition
Su
bdim
ensi
ons,
Su
bdw
nain
s,
or S
ubco
nten
t
32.
33.
34.
Seer
s &
Gra
en
(198
4)
Snyd
er,
Willi
ams,
&
Cas
hman
ww
Ve
cchi
o &
Gob
del(l9
84)
3s.
Wak
abay
ashi
&
Gra
en
(198
4)
36.
Ferri
s (1
985)
31
. Li
den
(198
5)
38.
Snyd
er &
Bru
ning
(1
985)
39
. Ve
cchi
o (1
985)
40
.* D
iene
sch
& Li
den
(198
6)
41.
Duc
hon,
G
reen
&
Tabe
r (1
986)
42.
Scan
dura
. G
raen
&
Nov
ak
(198
6)
43.
Vecc
hio,
G
riffe
th,
& H
orn
(198
6)
44.
Die
nesc
h (1
987)
45
. Fa
irhur
st,
Rog
ers.
&
Saar
(19
87)
46.
Gas
t (1
987)
47.
Laga
ce (
1987
) 48
.+
Gra
en
& Sc
andu
ra
(198
7)
49.
Nov
ak &
G
raen
(1
987)
SO.
Vecc
hio
(198
7)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Tr
ust
in s
uper
viso
r N
one
disc
usse
d.
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude:
in
/out
st
atus
w
ith
supe
rvis
or
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
rela
tions
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e Le
ader
-mem
ber
exch
ange
; le
ader
ship
in
terp
erso
nal
sens
itivi
ty
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Tale
nt
and
trust
. N
one
disc
usse
d.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
N
one
disc
usse
d.
Exch
ange
qu
ality
of
lead
ersh
ip
rela
- tio
nshi
p Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e R
ole-
mak
ing
Socia
l in
tera
ctio
n co
ntrib
utin
g to
qu
ality
of
the
exch
ange
Con
tribu
tion
to t
he e
xcha
nge,
mut
ual
loya
lty,
and
mut
ual
affe
ct.
Takin
g su
gges
tions
to
sup
ervi
sor,
assi
stan
ce w
ith
prob
lem
s;
and
depe
ndab
ility
with
su
perv
isor
. H
igh
qual
ity
rela
tions
hip
char
acte
rized
by
rec
ipro
cal
trust
.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge;
neg
otia
ting
latit
ude
Qua
lity
of r
esou
rce
exch
ange
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e
Perc
eive
d co
ntrib
utio
n to
the
exc
hang
e,
loya
lty.
and
affe
ct.
Exte
nt
to w
hich
a
supe
rvis
or
nego
tiate
s ra
ther
th
an p
resc
ribes
ro
le
expe
ctat
ions
an
d ot
her
job
issu
es; c
ompa
rativ
e do
min
ance
. to
tal
dom
inan
ce,
and
trans
actio
nal
rigid
ity.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Trus
t.
Qua
lity
of r
ecip
roca
l ex
chan
ge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
(loya
lty,
supp
ort.
and
trust
) an
d co
uplin
g (in
fluen
ce,
dele
ga-
tion,
lat
itude
, an
d in
nova
tiven
ess)
. Ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l re
sour
ces
(inclu
ding
tru
st,
expe
rtise
. an
d co
ntro
l of
or
gani
zatio
nal
reso
urce
s).
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Tabl
e 1.
(C
ontin
ued)
Stud
y Th
eore
tical
De
finitio
n Su
bdim
ensio
ns,
Subd
omai
ns.
or
Subc
onte
nt
51‘
Blau
(1
988)
Q
ualit
y of
me~
tor/p
rot~
g~
exch
ange
52
. K’
Qbo
nyo
(198
8)
Rol
e-m
akin
g
53.
Lean
a (1
988)
R
ole
latit
ude
54.
Peck
(19
88)
Qua
lity
of r
elat
ions
hip
55.
Scan
dura
(1
988)
Ex
chan
ge
56.
Sidh
u (1
988)
57,
Stei
ner
(198
8)
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude;
qu
ality
of
ex
chan
ge
Lead
ersh
ip
exch
ange
58.
Wak
abay
ashi
, G
raen
, G
raen
, &
Gra
en
(198
8)
Fairh
urst
&
Cha
ndle
r (1
989)
H
enem
an,
Gre
enbe
rger
, &
Anon
yuo
(198
9)
Kozlo
wsk
i &
Doh
erty
(1
989)
Se
ers
(198
9)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
59.
60.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Socia
l st
ruct
ure
of e
xcha
nge;
ne
gotia
ted
powe
r an
d so
cial
dis
tanc
e.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Trus
t, in
tera
ctio
n,
supp
ort,
and
rew
ards
.
61.
62.
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude
Qua
lity
of te
am-m
embe
r ex
chan
ge
63.
64.
65.
66.
Wak
abay
ashi
&
Gra
en
(198
9)
Wei
tzel
&
Gra
en
(198
9)
Zale
sny
& Ki
rsch
(1
989)
D
obbi
ns,
Car
dy,
& Pl
atz-
Vien
o t1
9w
Doc
kery
&
Stei
ner
(199
0)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of w
orkin
g re
latio
nshi
p Q
ualit
y of
wor
king
rela
tions
hip
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
67.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Con
tribu
tion,
m
utua
l un
ders
tand
ing,
an
d su
ppor
t. C
once
rn,
supp
ort,
cons
ider
atio
n,
attra
ctio
n,
role
or
ient
atio
n,
bar-
gain
ing,
op
enne
ss,
trust
, su
ppor
t, an
d fe
edba
ck.
Subo
rdin
ate
capa
bilit
y,
trust
wor
thin
ess,
an
d m
otiv
atio
n to
ass
ume
grea
ter
resp
onsi
bilit
y.
Ope
nnes
s, t
rust
, su
ppor
t, an
d fe
edba
ck.
Task
ass
ignm
ent
(cha
lleng
e),
reso
urce
allo
catio
n,
and
eval
uatio
n (p
er-
form
ance
ap
prai
sal).
At
tent
ion
and
supp
ort.
Influ
ence
an
d su
ppor
t be
yond
th
e em
ploy
men
t co
ntra
ct,
auto
nom
y.
and
resp
onsi
bilit
y.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Trus
t, di
scre
tion,
an
d co
mm
unic
atio
n.
Rec
ipro
city
be
twee
n a
mem
ber
and
the
peer
gr
oup-
wilii
ngnc
ss
to
assi
st o
ther
s; s
hare
ide
as a
nd
feed
back
; av
aila
bilit
y of
info
rma-
tio
n,
help
, an
d re
cogn
ition
from
pe
er g
roup
. Tr
ust
and
supp
ort.
Mut
ual
cont
rol
and
exch
ange
of v
alue
d re
sour
ces,
inc
ludi
ng
expe
rtise
. Jo
b la
titud
e,
mut
ual
trust
, an
d lo
yalty
. Le
ader
ship
vs
. sup
ervi
sion
: in
form
al
feed
back
and
coa
chin
g.
Influ
ence
an
d su
ppor
t be
yond
th
e em
ploy
men
t co
ntra
ct:
reci
proc
al
supp
ort.
mut
ual
trust
. re
spec
t, lik
ing,
gr
eate
r in
tera
ctio
n.
and
grea
ter
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r su
bord
inat
e.
tl.~~
~?l;ll
li~~4
~)
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
16.
17.
78.
Gra
en,
Wak
abay
ashi
. G
raen
, &
Gra
en
(199
0)
Laga
ce (
1990
) N
ystro
m
(199
0)
Tann
er
& C
astle
berry
(1
990)
Tu
rban
, Jo
nes,
&
Roz
elle
(1
990)
U
hl-B
ien,
Ti
erne
y,
Gra
en,
& W
akab
ayas
bi
(199
0)
Wak
abay
ashi
, G
raen
, &
Uhl
-Bie
n (1
990)
W
ayne
& F
erris
(1
990)
Ya
mm
arin
o &
Dub
insk
y (1
990)
Basu
(19
91)
Del
uga
& Pe
rry (
lPP1
)
79.*
Gra
en
& U
hl-B
ien
(199
1)
80.
Kron
e (1
991)
81.
McC
Iane
(1
991a
)
82.
McC
lane
(1
.991
b)
83.
Salzm
ann
& G
rash
a (1
991)
Qua
lity
of v
ertic
al
exch
ange
N
one
disc
usse
d.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Supe
rvis
ory
supp
ort,
latit
ude,
an
d at
tent
ion;
m
embe
r co
ntrib
utio
n.
Dis
cret
ion.
at
tent
ion,
in
fluen
ce,
supp
ort,
info
rmat
ion,
an
d ot
her
reso
urce
s.
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e re
latio
nshi
p
Qua
lity
of r
elat
ions
hip
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Latit
ude;
su
perv
isor
at
tent
ion
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Soci
al
exch
ange
re
latio
nshi
ps
Mat
urity
of
rel
atio
nshi
p (L
eade
rshi
p-
mak
ing
mod
el)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude
Neg
otia
ting
latit
ude
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Latit
ude,
su
ppor
t, an
d at
tent
ion.
Li
king
. At
tent
ion,
su
ppor
t, in
form
atio
n,
influ
ence
, au
thor
ity,
and
latit
ude.
Dep
enda
bilit
y,
help
~lne
ss,
trust
, an
d re
latio
nshi
p ef
fect
iven
ess.
Supp
ort,
guid
ance
, an
d in
fluen
ce
in d
ecis
ions
. 9
dim
ensi
ons
(onl
y 3
give
n-pr
ovid
ing
info
rmat
ion,
en
cour
agem
ent,
and
perfo
rman
ce
feed
back
). Lo
yalty
, su
ppor
t, au
tono
my.
an
d in
fluen
ce
in d
ecis
ion
mak
ing;
qu
ality
an
d co
uplin
g.
Inte
rper
sona
l at
tract
ion,
m
utua
l in
fluen
ce,
supp
ort
and
trust
, an
d fo
rmal
an
d in
form
al
rew
ards
. Lo
yalty
an
d su
ppor
t (m
atur
e re
latio
nshi
p sa
id t
o be
ch
arac
teriz
ed
by
reci
proc
al
influ
ence
, ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l be
havi
or,
mut
ual
trust
, re
spec
t, lik
ing,
an
d in
tern
aliza
tion
of c
omm
on
goal
s).
Parti
cipa
tion
in c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d ad
min
istra
tion
activ
ities
, su
per-
viso
r su
ppor
t, an
d re
spon
sive
ness
. Le
ader
’s w
illing
ness
to
allo
w ch
ange
s in
mem
ber’s
jo
b,
and
lead
er’s
incl
inat
ion
to u
se p
ower
to
hel
p m
embe
r so
lve
prob
lem
s.
Lead
er’s
willi
ngne
ss
to a
llow
chan
ges
in m
embe
r’s
job,
an
d le
ader
’s in
clin
atio
n to
use
pow
er
to h
elp
mem
ber
solv
e pr
oble
ms.
Su
perv
isor
ad
apta
bilit
y to
cha
nge,
hel
pful
ness
, ap
proa
chab
ility,
an
d ef
fect
iven
ess
of w
ork
rela
tions
hip.
Smdy
84.
Sten
ina,
Pe
rrew
e,
Was
sell.
H
ahis
, &
May
field
(1
991)
85
. U
hl-B
ien
(199
1)
86.
Wal
dron
(1
991)
Theo
retic
al
Defin
ition
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Subd
itnen
sions
, Su
bdom
nins
, or
Su
bcon
tent
Trus
t, ne
gotia
ting
latit
ude,
~n
form
at~o
n~ in
fluen
ce.
conf
iden
ce.
and
conc
ern
from
le
ader
.
87.
Baug
h (1
992)
88
. C
arne
vale
&
Wec
hsle
r (1
992)
89
. D
ay 4
% C
rain
(1
992)
90
. D
elug
a (1
992)
92
. D
uneg
an,
Duc
hon,
&
Uhl
-Bie
n (1
992)
92
. D
uneg
an,
Tier
ney,
&
Duc
hon
(199
2)
93.
Ger
ras
(199
2)
94.
Ges
sner
(19
92)
95.*
Gra
en
& W
akab
ayas
hi
(199
2)
96.
Mar
kham
, M
urry
, &
Scot
t (1
992)
97
. Sc
hrie
shei
m,
Nei
der.
Scan
dura
, &
Tepp
er
(199
2a)
98.
Schr
iesh
eim
, Sc
andu
ra,
Eise
nbac
h,
& N
eide
r (1
9921
3)
99.
Tiem
ey
(199
2)
lOO
.* U
hl-B
ien
& G
raen
(1
992)
101.
Ya
mm
arin
o &
Dub
insk
y (1
992)
102.
Ba
ugh,
G
raen
&
Page
(19
93)
Rol
e-m
akin
g pr
oces
ses
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Trus
t an
d m
utua
l ex
chan
ge
of in
form
atio
n an
d re
sour
ces.
As
sist
ance
, at
tent
ion,
su
ppor
t, in
form
al
rew
ards
, an
d ne
gotia
ting
latit
ude.
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e Tr
ust,
atte
ntio
n.
and
supp
ort.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Trus
t, ne
gotia
ting
latit
ude,
an
d co
nfid
ence
in
sup
ervi
sion
. Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e Tr
ust,
inte
ract
ion,
su
ppor
t, an
d re
war
ds.
Qua
lity
of s
ocia
l ex
chan
ge r
elat
ions
hip
Mut
ual
influ
ence
, lo
yalty
. su
ppor
t, an
d a
sens
e of
com
mon
fa
te.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Addi
tiona
l re
sour
ces
rece
ived
(in
form
atio
n,
inte
ract
ion,
an
d
Qua
lity
of in
tera
ctio
n pe
rson
al
conc
ern)
. N
one
disc
usse
d.
Exch
ange
qu
ality
; ro
le-m
akin
g Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e M
atur
ity
of le
ader
ship
re
latio
nshi
p Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e
Con
tribu
tion,
af
fect
, and
loy
alty
. R
espo
nsib
ility,
tru
st,
and
com
pete
nce.
M
utua
l tru
st,
resp
ect,
and
oblig
atio
n.
Lead
ersh
ip
atte
ntio
n.
Perc
eive
d co
ntrib
utio
n,
loya
lty,
and
affe
ct.
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Lead
ersh
ip-m
akin
g m
odel
Perc
eive
d co
ntrib
utio
n,
loya
lty,
and
affe
ct.
Addi
tiona
l re
spon
sibi
lity.
ris
k-ta
king
. an
d ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l ac
tiviti
es.
Mat
ure
rela
tions
hip
char
acte
rized
by
rec
ipro
cal
influ
ence
, ex
traco
n-
tract
ual
beha
vior
, m
utua
l tru
st,
resp
ect.
likin
g,
and
a se
nse
of c
omm
on
fate
. Su
perio
r-sub
ordi
nate
re
latio
nshi
ps
Team
w
orkin
g re
latio
nshi
p
Supe
rvis
or
satis
fact
ion
with
pe
rform
ance
, jo
b co
ngru
ence
. ;it
tent
ion
(sup
port
and
cons
ider
atio
n),
and
job
latit
ude
(dis
cret
ion
and
freed
om).
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Stud
v
Tabl
e 1.
(C
ontin
ued)
Theo
retic
al
Defin
ition
Subd
imen
sions
Su
bdom
ains
. or
Su
bcon
tent
103.
Du
arte
, G
oods
on,
& Kl
ich
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Tr
ust.
inte
ract
ion,
pa
rticip
atio
n,
supp
ort,
and
rewa
rds.
104.
Fa
irhur
st (1
993)
In
crem
enta
l in
fluen
ce
Trus
t. in
tern
aliza
tion
of
com
mon
go
als,
ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l be
havio
r an
d
105.
Jo
nes,
G
laman
, &
John
son
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
inte
ract
ions
10
6.
Judg
e &
Ferri
s (1
993)
Q
uality
of
ex
chan
ge
107.
Li
den,
W
ayne
, &
Stilw
ell
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
108.
M
urry
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
rewa
rds,
mut
ual
influ
ence
, an
d su
ppor
t. No
ne
disc
usse
d.
None
di
scus
sed.
109.
Ph
illips
, J&
ran,
&
Howe
ll (1
993)
Ex
chan
ge
rela
tions
hip
110.
Sc
ott
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Trus
t, re
spec
t, lik
ing,
an
d re
cipro
cal
influ
ence
.
Loya
lty
and
likin
g,
com
pete
nce.
le
ader
ship
at
tent
ion,
an
d su
perio
r- su
bord
inat
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n.
Cont
ribut
ion,
af
fect
, an
d loy
alty.
Info
rmat
ion
shar
ing,
au
thor
ity
and
auto
nom
y, su
ppor
t, co
ncer
n,
and
trust
. 11
1.
Tann
er,
Dunn
, &
Chon
ko
(199
3)
Exch
ange
re
latio
nshi
p qu
ality
Ex
chan
ge
of
supp
ort,
extra
cont
ract
ual
role
s,
high
qu
ality
co
mm
unica
-
112.
Ta
nsky
(1
993)
Q
uality
of
re
latio
nshi
p
113.
Va
nsud
evan
(1
993)
Q
uality
of
ex
chan
ge
tion,
an
d re
sour
ces.
No
ne
disc
usse
d.
Trus
t, re
spec
t, lik
ing,
se
nse
of c
omm
on
fate
, ex
traco
ntra
ctua
l be
havio
r,
114.
11
5.
116.
11
7.
Vecc
hio
(199
3)
Qua
lity
of
rela
tions
hip
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Q
uality
of
ex
chan
ge
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
and
recip
roca
l in
fluen
ce.
None
di
scus
sed.
W
ayne
&
Gree
n (1
993)
Wilh
elm
, He
rd,
& St
eine
r (1
9Y3)
As
hkan
asy
& O
’Con
nor
(199
4)
Trus
t, in
tera
ctio
n.
supp
ort,
and
form
al/in
form
al
rewa
rds.
Trus
t. su
ppor
t, in
tera
ctio
n,
and
rewa
rds.
Free
dom
, be
tter
job
assig
nmen
ts,
and
grea
ter
oppo
rtuni
ties
to
work
118.
Ba
uer
& Gr
een
(199
4)
119.
Bo
rchg
revin
k &
Bost
er
(199
4)
120.
De
luga
&
Perry
(1
994)
121.
Du
arte
, G
oods
on,
& Kl
ich
(199
4)
122.
Ki
nick
i &
Vecc
hio
(199
4)
123.
Ph
illips
&
Bede
ian
(199
4)
Qua
lity
of
rela
tions
hip
Inte
rper
sona
l ex
chan
ge
rela
tions
hip
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Qua
lity
of
rela
tions
hip
Dyad
ic so
cial
ex
chan
ge
Qua
lity
of
exch
ange
Q
uality
of
ex
chan
ge
with
le
ader
. No
ne
disc
usse
d.
Trus
t, re
spec
t, loy
alty.
likin
g,
supp
ort,
open
ness
, an
d ho
nesty
. Tr
ust,
supp
ort.
inte
rper
sona
l at
tract
ion,
an
d m
utua
l in
fluen
ce.
Trus
t ve
rsus
di
stan
ce.
None
di
scus
sed.
No
ne
disc
usse
d.
None
di
scus
sed.
12
4.
Scan
dura
&
Schr
iesh
eim
(1
994)
-
Stud
y
Tabl
e 1.
(C
~~~~
~~e~
)
Theo
retic
al
Defin
ition
Subd
imen
sions
, Su
bdom
ains
, or
Su
bcon
tent
125.
Sc
ott
& Br
uce
(199
4)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
126.
Ba
su &
Gre
en
(199
5)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
127.
” D
anse
reau
(1
995)
12
8.”
Gra
en
& U
hl-B
ien
(199
5)
Indi
vidu
aliz
ed
lead
ersh
ip
Team
-mak
ing
129.
Ke
ller
& D
anse
reau
(1
995)
13
0.
Kram
er
(199
5)
131.
M
ajor
, Ko
zlow
ski,
Cha
o,
& G
ardn
er
(199
5)
132.
Si
as &
Jab
lin
(199
5)
133.
Ba
uer
& G
reen
(1
996)
134.
Bh
ai
& An
sari
(199
6)
135.
M
asly
n,
Farm
er,
& Fe
dor
(199
6)
136.
G
reen
, An
ders
on,
& Sh
iver
s (1
996)
13
7.*
Scan
dura
&
Lank
au
(199
6)
138.
Se
ttoon
, Be
nnet
t, &
Lide
n (1
996)
.
139.
Th
ibod
eaux
&
Lowe
(1
996)
14
0.
Willi
ams,
G
avin
, &
Willi
ams
(199
6)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of r
elat
ions
hip
Socia
l ex
chan
ge
Exch
ange
pr
oces
s
Exch
ange
Q
ualit
y of
the
rel
atio
nshi
p
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Qua
lity
of t
he r
elat
ions
hip
Non
e gi
ven
Trus
t, m
utua
l lik
ing,
an
d re
spec
t: gr
eate
r au
tono
my
and
deci
sion
la
titud
e.
Loya
lty,
este
em,
trust
, de
sirab
le
assi
gnm
ents
, ra
pid
adva
ncem
ent,
and
frien
dshi
p.
Prov
isio
n of
sel
f-wor
th.
Trus
t, re
spec
t, an
d ob
ligat
ion
spec
ifica
lly l
iste
d as
the
dim
ensi
ons
of
LMX;
un
ders
tand
ing,
co
mm
itmen
t, lo
yahy
. re
cipr
ocal
in
fluen
ce,
and
supp
ort
also
dis
cuss
ed.
Trus
t, vo
lunt
ary
cont
ribut
ion,
lo
yalty
, an
d la
titud
e in
per
form
ing
task
s.
Rec
ipro
cal
influ
ence
an
d tru
st.
Trus
t an
d so
cial
in
tegr
atio
n.
Hig
h qu
ality
re
latio
nshi
ps
char
acte
rized
by
hig
h le
vels
of
trust
. op
en
com
mun
icat
ion,
gr
eate
r ne
gotia
ting
latit
ude,
le
ss d
irect
su
per-
visi
on,
incr
ease
d su
perv
isor
y su
ppor
t, an
d gr
eate
r su
bord
inat
e in
fluen
ce
in d
ecis
ion
mak
ing.
H
igh
qual
ity
rela
tions
hips
ch
arac
teriz
ed
by h
igh
leve
ls o
f m
utua
l tru
st
and
resp
ect.
Perc
eive
d co
ntrib
utio
n.
loya
lty (
supp
ort),
an
d af
fect
(lik
ing)
. H
igh
qual
ity
rela
tions
hips
ch
arac
teriz
ed
by h
igh
leve
ls o
f af
fect
. in
form
atio
n,
reso
urce
s, a
nd s
uppo
rt.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
Mut
ual
resp
ect,
trust
. an
d m
utua
l ob
ligat
ion.
~x
traco
ntra
~ual
be
havi
ors.
Non
e di
scus
sed.
N
one
disc
usse
d.
Tabl
e 1.
(C
ontin
ued)
Stud
y Th
eore
tical
De
finitio
n
141.
Ba
su &
G
reen
(1
997f
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e 14
2.
Engl
e &
Lord
(1
997)
Q
ualit
y of
exc
hang
e 14
3.*
Spar
rowe
&
Lide
n (1
997)
Ex
chan
ge
144.
W
ayne
, Sh
ore
& Li
den
(199
7)
Socia
l ex
chan
ge
145.
Kl
ein
& Ki
m
(199
8)
Qua
lity
of th
e dy
adic
rel
atio
nshi
p 14
6.
Lide
n &
Mas
lyn
(199
8)
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
147.
Sc
hrie
shei
m,
Nei
der,
Qua
lity
of e
xcha
nge
Subd
imen
sions
, Su
bdom
ains
, or
Su
bcon
tent
2 >
Loya
lty,
supp
ort,
auto
nom
y,
and
influ
ence
. 3
Non
e di
scus
sed.
” 2
Thre
e pr
imar
y di
men
sion
s of
rec
ipro
city
ar
e di
scus
sed:
imm
edia
cy
of
zn’
retu
rns,
eq
uiva
lenc
e of
ret
urns
, an
d de
gree
an
d na
ture
of
the
inte
r- es
t of
eac
h pa
rty i
n th
e ex
chan
ge.
Hig
h qu
ality
re
latio
nshi
ps
char
acte
rized
by
incr
ease
d re
sour
ces,
info
r- m
atio
n,
and
supp
ort.
Influ
ence
, tru
st,
and
resp
ect.
Con
tribu
tion,
lo
yalty
, af
fect
, and
pro
fess
iona
l re
spec
t. Lo
yalty
, af
fect
, and
per
ceiv
ed
cont
ribut
ion.
&
Scan
dura
(1
998)
*The
oret
ical/n
onem
piric
al
work.
no
t in
clude
d in
Tab
le
2.
76 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
LMX was an exchange relationship based on competence, interpersonal skill, and trust. while Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1976) saw the exchange rela- tionship as being based on attention and sensitivity. Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) later expanded the number of subdimensions, adding support, reward, and satisfac- tion with the leader; additionally, LMX was described as both an exchange pattern and as leader acceptance.
The list of LMX subdimensions was next extended by Graen, Cashman, Gins- burgh, and Schiemann (1977) to include influence and latitude (in addition to the previous five elements); LMX was defined as “linking-pin quality.” A somewhat reduced set of subdimensions was presented by Schiemann (1977) who argued that the LMX subdomain included trust, sensitivity, support, and attention. Graen and Schiemann’s (1978) set of subdimensions was slightly altered, as they added informa- tion as an additional element to the set proposed by Schiemann (1977) (while excluding trust). The variations and evolutionary changes in the theoretical defini- tion of LMX continued into the next decade, with other researchers undertaking LMX research.
Throughout the 1980s Graen and colleagues continued to define LMX as the quality of the exchange between leader and subordinate, while at the same time describing varying subdimensions or subcontent of the construct.
Eighteen additional subdimensions/content subaspects were included in 13 stud- ies by Graen and colleagues during this lo-year span (trust, competence, motivation, assistance and support, understanding, latitude, authority, information, influence in decision making, communications, confidence, consideration, talent, delegation, innovativeness, expertise, control of organizational resources, and mutual control). Even more diverse were the conceptualizations and subcontent employed by other LMX researchers. Of the 37 other dissertations or research papers published or presented during the 1980s quite noteworthy is the use of 11 different theoretical definitions in these works (opportunities for influence/control, leadership attention, noncontractual social exchange, quality of exchange, negotiating latitude, supervi- sory relations, trust in supervisor, leadership interpersonal sensitivity, role making, role latitude, and leadership exchange) as well as 35 different subcontent elements.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that 16 of the articles in this period did not provide either explicit construct definitions or an explication of LMX subcontent. Thus, the makeup of the construct definition across this body of research was expanded substantially (or in some cases not explicitly treated), yet it seems remark- able that a decade after the inception of LMX theory there was still so much disagreement as to the basic definition of the construct as well as no clear or consistent direction provided about where or how to proceed in developing the theory.
It was during this period (the 198Os), and most likely in response to the state of confusion in the field, that several comprehensive reviews of the LMX literature were undertaken. Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found mixed results regarding rela- tionships among LMX and various outcomes (previously reported as positively related to LMX), and called for increased attention to both conceptual and opera- tional definitions of the LMX construct. Dienesch and Liden (1986) also brought attention to the lack of theoretical underpinnings, from both the perspective of
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 77
LMX development as well as the dimensionality of the construct (they proposed a three-dimensional model of LMX-composed of mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty).
Graen and Scandura (1987) provided what appears to be the first systematic and thorough discussion of many facets of the construct since Graen’s (1976) earlier theoretical piece, presenting a three-phase model of LMX development: role-taking, role-making, and role-routinization. They also provided explication of LMX dimen- sionality, outlining two higher order dimensions: quality and coupling. The quality aspect addresses the attitudes present in the exchange relationship (the extent of loyalty, support, and trust between dyad members), while the coupling dimension is more behaviorally oriented (addressing influence, delegation, latitude, and inno- vativeness). Finally, at least one article during this decade provided a clear and detailed definition of the LMX phenomenon:
Leader-member exchange is (a) a system of components and their relationships (b) involving both members of a dyad (c) involving interdependent patterns of behavior and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e) producing conceptions of environments, cause maps, and value (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986, p. 580).
Unfortunately, although a great deal of research on LMX continued into the next decade and focused on understanding some of the underpinnings of the LMX phenomenon, the waters continued to be muddied with little consistency about the basic definition and content of the LMX construct (even in different works by the same authors).
Eighty-two empirical and theoretical works developed during the 1990s are in- cluded in this review (see Table 1). As mentioned above, inconsistency in the subcontent of the construct continued to exist, but the majority of studies showed good consensus on the nature of the phenomenon as being the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate. However, other definitions of the construct were offered, including: latitude or supervisor attention (Yammar- ino & Dubinsky, 1990); social exchange relationships (Deluga & Perry, 1991); maturity of the relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Graen & Wakabayashi, 1992); negotiating latitude (McClane, 1991a, 1991b); incremental influence (Fairh- urst, 1993), and individualized leadership (Dansereau, 1995).
Six content subdomains appear to be predominant in a majority of the studies: mutual support, trust, liking, latitude, attention, and loyalty. Note, however, that there were many studies that proposed additional content subdomains (in addition to the six listed above), as well as some studies that proposed a completely different set of content subdomains (see Table 1 for further details). Most recently, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) reiterated the Graen and Wakabayashi (1992) three-dimensional conceptualization of LMX quality as consisting of three factors (respect, trust, and obligation), such that:
An offer will not be made and accepted without (1) mutual respect for the capabilities of the other, (2) the anticipation of deepening reciprocal trust
78 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19W
with the other, and (3) the expectation that interacting obligation will grow over time as career-oriented social exchanges blossom into a partnership (Graen & Uhl-Bien. 1995. p. 237).
LMX and Levels of Analysis Issues As many in the field of organizational studies have recognized, it is important
to clearly specify the level(s) of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist (cf., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Organizations are comprised of multiple levels (e.g., individuals, dyads, work groups, departments), necessitating that researchers specify where (at what level or levels) their construct of interest is expected to manifest its effects. This is an important first step in investigations of organizational phenomena, as the theoretical specifica- tion can then be used to ensure that measurement and data-analytic techniques correspond to the proposed level of analysis. The level of theory, measurement, and data-analytic technique must be aligned to ensure that obtained results are not misleading or artifacts (Klein et al., 1994).
The level of analysis issue is not a minor or trivial one for LMX research, for one of the noteworthy hallmarks of early VDL theory was its departure from the traditional ALS approach and its clear specification of dyads as its hypothesized level of analysis. In fact, the VDL model was initially formulated to treat leadership as occurring at the dyadic level of analysis, where a dyad consists of the leader and one subordinate. The VDL model was premised on the fact that leaders differentiate between subordinates in their work groups, rather than use the same leadership style with all subordinates (at the time the VDL model was first formulated, the ALS model was the dominant leadership approach; cf., Kerr. Schriesheim, Mur- phy, & Stogdill, 1974). Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that early LMX theorists forcefully argued that “leadership can occur only in the vertical [leader-subordinate] dyad” (Dansereau et al., 1975, p. 76). that for leadership research “the appropriate level of analysis is not the work group. . . but the vertical dyad” (Graen & Cashman, 1975, p, 150) and that VDL theory “views the particular relationships between the leader and each of his individual members as the basic unit of analysis” for leadership research (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen 1973, p. 187) (see similar statements by Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972b, p. 265).
While the majority of recent LMX research still assumes that LMX is predicated on the existence of a leader differentiating among subordinates within his/her work group, the most recent work by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) makes a remarkable departure from previous LMX research by describing LMX as strictly a relational concept and by asserting that the leader and follower within the context of the work unit are no longer of principal interest in LMX theory-the relationship is now seen as the main focus. This modification distinguishes the most recent work of Graen and colleagues from the VDL model, and Dansereau et al. (1995a) have criticized this recent perspective as being unclear with regard to levels of analysis. Because the relationship is the primary focus (and the individual followers and leaders no longer appear to be of interest), Dansereau et al. (1995a) suggest that the current conceptualization allows any level of analysis as appropriate as long as the relationship remains the focus. Thus, further theoretical development seems
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 79
needed with respect to the appropriate level(s) of analysis for conducting future LMX research.
Dansereau and colleagues have also distanced themselves from the LMX ap- proach, as they have recently proposed an alternative conceptualization of leader- ship relationships (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau et al., 1995b). Dansereau’s ap- proach, called “Individualized Leadership” (IL), focuses on dyadic relationships outside of any collective context, and is different from both the ALS and VDLi LMX perspectives on leadership. Dansereau (1995) proffers that the VDL model differs substantially from the LMX model (as conceptualized by Graen and col- leagues) in that the VDL model asserts that leaders form in-groups and out-groups (within their work units), and that the VDL can co-exist with the ALS approach (i.e., both ALS and VDL effects may operate simultaneously). He argues that the LMX model assumes that “different relationships must occur within supervisory work groups,” thus replacing the ALS approach as opposed to complementing it (Dansereau, 1995, p. 482). Dansereau’s IL model proposes that both individuals involved in the dyad are considered distinct from their respective others (i.e., each follower is independent of other followers, and each leader is viewed as unique). However, a linkage still exists between each leader and follower (while the dyad remains independent of other dyads).
Summary In summary, and as documented in Table 1, LMX was initially conceptualized
quite broadly, as being comprised of the amount of interpersonal attraction between a leader and a member and the degree of loyalty that existed between a leader and a member (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) as well as attention, support, and sensitivity (Dansereau et al., 1975). However, Cummings (1975), in commenting on Graen and Cashman’s (1975) explication of the approach, con- tended that the theory’s constructs were vague and ambiguous. Perhaps in response to this criticism, multiple iterations of LMX definitions have since followed. These have been confusing and sometimes appear to be contradictory but, more impor- tantly, they have appeared with little or no discussion provided as to why the theory has evolved and why particular changes in the LMX construct have been offered.
While early VDL theory can be said to have evolved along two separate branches of thinking (LMX and IL), differences among the three approaches are often not clearly represented by persons doing research in this domain. However, we believe that these three approaches may be differentiated largely as follows. The VDL approach has employed negotiating latitude as its key variable and has focused on differentiated dyads in groups as its level of analysis. The LMX approach has used measures of leader-member exchange as its central variable and left the level of analysis open or unspecified (despite using the terms “dyad” and “dyadic,” LMX theory and research has typically been unclear as to whether dyads in groups, dyads independent of groups, or some other level of analysis is involved). Finally, the 1L model has employed self-worth, satisfaction, and performance as its main focus and has used whole dyads (independent of groups) as its level of analysis (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau et al., 1995a, 1995b).
Although some LMX researchers have attempted to respond to criticisms raised
80 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. IO No. 1 1999
about the theory, future theoretical treatments need to include better explanations and justifications for changes which are proposed. Additionally, it would be quite useful if future work linked current conceptualizations to the previous ones from which they derived. [As an illustration, Dansereau’s (1995) treatment of the evolu- tion of the IL approach did an exemplary job of this.] Finally, levels-of-analysis issues must be specifically addressed in future theoretical treatments. The level(s)- of-analysis at which LMX phenomena are expected to hold must be clearly specified and theoretical justification for the proposed level(s) must be offered. Otherwise, criticisms that the theory is vague (Cummings, 1975) and that it suffers from “. . . a lack of specificity” and “. . . needs substantial clarification” (Dansereau et al., 1995a, p. 108) will continue to detract from the value and contribution of this approach to the study of leadership phenomena.
Measurement of leader-Member Exchange
Measures of high psychometric quality are necessary in all fields of research so that the state of knowledge can advance (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Unfortu- nately, however, within the fields of management (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993) and organizational behavior (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Stone-Romero, 1994) sufficient attention has not generally been directed toward measurement development and validation, perhaps because substantive research tends to be emphasized over meth- odologically oriented research (Schwab, 1980).
This general lack of attention to measurement issues is also evident in the leadership domain (Barge & Schlueter, 1991; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977b). Specifi- cally speaking about psychometric adequacy in leadership research, Korman (1974, p. 194) noted that, “The point is not that accurate measurement is ‘nice.’ It is necessary, crucial, etc. Without it we have nothing.” To obtain “accurate measure- ment,” the principles of scale development outlined by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) as well as others (e.g., Hinkin, 1995) should be followed. First and foremost, a clear definition of the theoretical content domain and any subdomains is needed. From this definition, items can then be developed which assess the domain. A systematic program of study should then begin, in an effort to assess the psychomet- ric properties of the scale and its construct validity. Any changes in a scale should then be accompanied by both theoretical justification and psychometric evidence related to the effects of such changes.
Evolution of LMX Measures The LMX construct has been operationalized with many different measures, and
the various LMX scales have ranged from two to 25 items (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Weitzel & Graen, 1989). Table 2 presents a detailed summary of the leadership measures that were used in the empirical studies presented in Table 1 and discussed above.
As shown in Table 2, the initial investigations of LMX by Graen, Dansereau, and Minami (1972a, 1972b), Dansereau, Cashman, and Graen (1973), and Graen, Dansereau, Minami, and Cashman (1973a) used 40 Consideration and Initiating
Stud
y
Tabl
e 2.
su
mm
ary
of
Mea
sure
s U
sed
and
Ana
lytic
M
etho
dolo
gy
Em
ploy
ed
in E
mpi
rica
LMX
Stud
ies,
19
72-1
998
Repo
rted
Mea
sure
Us
ed”
Anal
ytic
Met
hod
1. G
raen
, D
anse
reau
, &
Min
ami
LBD
Q
(Con
sider
atio
n an
d In
itiat
ing
Stru
ctur
e su
bsca
les)
(40
ite
ms)
(1
972a
) (S
togd
ill &
Coo
ns,
1957
) 2.
Gra
en,
Dan
sere
au,
& M
inam
i (1
97’2
b)
LBD
Q
(Con
sider
atio
n an
d In
itiat
ing
Stru
ctur
e su
bsca
ies)
(40
ite
ms)
(S
togd
ill &
Coo
ns,
1957
); R
ole
Orie
ntat
ion
Inde
x (D
omin
ance
an
d C
ompe
tenc
e su
bsca
les)
(11
ite
ms)
(G
raen
, D
anse
reau
, &
Min
ami,
1972
a);
2 Le
ader
-mem
ber
influ
ence
sc
ales
(nu
mbe
r of
ite
ms
not
repo
rted)
(n
ew
scal
e: T
anne
nbau
m,
1968
) LB
DQ
(C
onsid
erat
ion
and
Initi
atin
g St
ruct
ure
subs
cale
s) (
40 i
tem
s)
(Sto
gdill
& C
oons
, 19
57)
3. D
anse
reau
, C
ashm
an,
& G
raen
(1
973)
4.
Gra
en,
Dan
sere
au,
Min
ami,
& C
ashm
an
(197
3a)
5. G
raen
, O
rris.
&
John
son
(197
3b)
6. H
aga,
Gra
en,
& D
anse
reau
(1
974)
7.
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
(197
5)
8. G
raen
&
Cas
hman
(1
975)
10.
Cas
hman
, D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
976)
LBD
Q
(Con
sider
atio
n an
d In
itiat
ing
Stru
ctur
e su
bsca
les)
(40
ite
ms)
(F
leis
hman
, 19
57; F
leis
hman
, H
arris
, &
Burtt
, 19
55)
plus
20
othe
r ne
w ite
ms
8-fa
cet
Supe
rvis
ory
Atte
ntio
n sc
ale
(sou
rce
of s
cale
and
num
ber
of
item
s no
t re
porte
d;
cont
ent
area
s ap
pear
si
mila
r to
Sup
ervi
sory
Tr
eatm
ent
Scaf
e [H
aga,
Gra
en.
& D
anse
reau
, 19
741)
Su
perv
isor
y Tr
eatm
ent
(8 it
ems)
(n
ew
scal
e; it
em c
onte
nt
sim
ilar
to
Lead
ersh
ip
Atte
ntio
n sc
ale
[Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
19
751)
N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (2
ite
ms)
; Le
ader
ship
At
tent
ion
(8 f
acet
s) a
nd
Lead
ersh
ip
Supp
ort
(12
face
ts) t
o m
easu
re l
eade
r an
d m
embe
r co
n-
tribu
tion
(new
sca
les
bul
cont
ent
of L
eade
rshi
p At
tent
ion
is s
imila
r to
Sup
ervi
sory
Tre
atm
ent
scal
e [H
aga,
Gra
en,
& D
anse
reau
, 19
741)
N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (4
item
s) (
sour
ce o
f sca
le n
ot r
epor
ted,
bu
t re
fer-
ence
d H
aga,
Gra
en,
& D
anse
reau
[1
974]
. D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a [1
975]
, an
d G
raen
11
9761
for
deta
ils;
item
s no
t lis
ted)
Su
perio
r N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (2
item
s) (
Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
19
75);
Supe
rior
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
(3
ite
ms)
(it
ems
and
sour
ce o
f sc
ale
not
repo
rted)
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
): C
orre
latio
ns;
t-tes
ts.
Raw
Scor
es (
tr~ch
otom
ized
): C
orre
latio
ns:
MAN
OVA
.
Raw
Scor
es;
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
.
Raw
Scor
es: C
orre
latio
ns.
Raw
Scor
es;
MAN
OVA
.
Raw
Scor
es: M
eans
: t-t
ests
.
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
; C
orre
latio
ns.
Raw
Scor
es; A
NO
VA.
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
11.
Gra
en
& G
insb
urgh
(1
977)
Le
ader
at
tent
ion
to n
eeds
, Le
ader
’s di
vulg
ing
job
info
rmat
ion,
Le
ad-
er’s
sup
port
(con
tent
of
thes
e 3
is s
imila
r to
Sup
ervi
sory
Tr
eatm
ent
scal
e [H
aga,
Gra
en,
& D
anse
reau
, 19
741)
Le
ader
’s pe
rson
al
sens
i- tiv
ity,
Lead
er’s
allo
wan
ce
for
self
dete
rmin
atio
n (n
umbe
r of
item
s an
d so
urce
of
scal
es n
ot r
epor
ted)
; Le
ader
ac
cept
ance
(2
ite
ms)
(n
ew
scal
e; s
imila
r to
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
scal
e of
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
[197
5])
12.
Gra
en,
Cas
hman
, G
insb
urgh
, &
Schi
eman
n (1
977)
13.
Schi
eman
n (1
977)
Lead
er-b
oss
Link
ing
Pin
Qua
lity
(4 i
tem
s)
(sou
rce
of s
cale
not
rc-
po
rted)
; Le
ader
- an
d m
embe
r-rep
orte
d La
titud
e an
d Su
ppor
t (n
um-
ber
of it
ems
and
sour
ce o
f sc
ales
not
rep
orte
d)
Lead
er
Beha
vior
In
dex
(Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
19
75);
Dya
dic
Exch
ange
sc
ale
(Gra
en
& C
ashm
an,
1975
)
14.
Gra
en
& Sc
hiem
ann
(197
8)
15. J
ames
, G
ent,
Hat
er,
& C
oray
(1
979)
LMX
(4 i
tem
s)
(new
sc
ale:
refe
renc
ed
Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en.
& H
aga
1197
51 a
nd G
raen
&
Cas
hman
[1
975]
) 3
item
s ba
sed
on d
iscu
ssio
n in
Hou
se &
Mitc
hell
(197
4) a
nd D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
975)
16
. Li
den
& G
raen
(1
980)
17.
Schr
iesh
eim
(1
980)
18.
Jam
es. H
ater
, &
Jone
s (1
981)
19.
Kate
rber
g &
Hor
n (1
981)
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
~ego
tiatin
g La
titud
e (4
ite
ms)
(s
ame
item
s as
in
Gra
en
& Sc
hiem
ann
1197
81)
Initi
atin
g St
ruct
ure
and
Con
sider
atio
n (1
0 ite
ms
each
) m
odifi
ed
from
th
e LB
DQ
-XII
(Sto
gdill,
19
63)
Influ
ence
O
ppor
tuni
ty
(3 it
ems)
an
d C
ontro
l (5
ite
ms)
ba
sed
on
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
(197
5)
LBD
Q
(Con
sider
atio
n an
d In
itiat
ing
Stru
ctur
e su
bsca
les)
(St
ogdi
ll, 19
63)
20.
Wak
abay
ashi
. M
inam
i, Ve
rtica
l Ex
chan
ge
(12
item
s)
(new
sc
ale;
ref
eren
ced
Gra
en
Has
him
oto,
Sa
ne,
Gra
en.
& C
ashm
an
[197
5])
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
: M
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
; AN
OVA
Raw
Scor
es: C
orre
latio
ns:
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n:
MAN
OVA
s (d
yadi
c ex
chan
ge s
core
s tri
-
chot
omiz
ed).
Raw
Scor
es; P
rofil
e Si
mila
rity:
Pa
ttern
Ag
reem
ent.
Raw
Scor
es:
Stan
dard
D
ev.;
Cor
rela
tions
: Su
bgro
up
Mod
erat
or
Anal
ysis
. Ra
w Sc
ores
(tri
chot
omiz
ed);
MAN
OVA
.
Raw
Scor
es:
Subg
roup
M
oder
ator
An
alys
is:
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es: P
aral
lelis
m
of R
egre
ssio
n:
Plan
ned
Com
paris
ons.
LM
X sc
ores
par
titio
ned
into
w
ithin
an
d be
twee
n va
rianc
e us
ing
regr
essi
on:
raw
scor
es u
sed
for
othe
r va
riabl
es.
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
); AN
OVA
.
& N
ovak
(1
981)
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
stw
iy
- 21
. D
anse
reau
. Al
utto
. M
arkh
am,
& D
umas
(1
982)
22
. G
raen
. Li
den,
&
Hoe
l (lY
X2a)
23.
Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
er-
kam
p (1
982b
) 24
. Ki
m
& O
rgan
(1
982)
25
. G
reen
, Bl
ank,
&
Lide
n (1
983)
26.
Nac
hman
, D
anse
reau
, &
Nau
ghto
n (1
983)
27
. R
osse
& K
raut
(1
983)
28
. C
hass
ie (
1984
)
29.
Fuka
mi
& La
rson
(1
984)
LM
X (3
ite
ms)
ada
pted
fro
m
Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en.
& H
aga
(197
5)
30.
Nov
ak (
1984
) 31
. Sc
andu
ra
81 G
raen
(1
984)
32.
Seer
s &
Gra
en
(19X
4)
33.
Snyd
er,
Willi
ams,
&
Cas
hman
(1
9X4)
34
. Ve
cchi
o &
Gob
del
(198
4)
35.
Wak
ahay
ashi
&
Gra
en
(19X
4)
Repo
rted
Mea
srrrr
Use&
Lead
ersh
ip
Atte
ntio
n (1
1 ite
ms)
(D
anse
reau
, G
raen
. &
Hag
a,
1975
)
Amlvi
is M
ethod
With
in
and
Betw
een
Anal
ysis
(W
ABA)
.
LMX
(5 i
tem
s)
(4 i
tem
s si
mila
r to
Gra
en
Ot S
chie
man
n [lY
78];
1 ne
w ite
m)
LMX-
7 (n
ew
scal
e; re
fere
nced
G
raen
&
Cas
hman
(1
9751
and
Lid
en
& G
raen
[1
980]
; ite
ms
not
prov
ided
) N
on-C
ontra
ctua
l So
cial
Exch
ange
(1
5 ite
ms)
(n
ew
scal
e)
LMX
(10
item
s),
som
e of
whi
ch
were
ad
apte
d fro
m
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en.
& H
aga
(197
5);
Dya
dic
Con
tribu
tion
(4 it
ems)
(n
ew
scal
e)
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
(2 i
tem
s)
(Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga.
19
75)
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
(4 i
tem
s)
(new
sc
ale)
LM
X (4
ite
ms)
(G
raen
&
Schi
eman
n.
1978
)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
LMX-
7 (n
ew
scal
e, 7
-item
sc
ale
also
rep
orte
d to
be
used
in
Gra
en.
Nov
ak.
& So
mm
erka
mp
[lY%
b])
I,ead
ersh
ip
Exch
ange
m
easu
res
repo
rtedl
y fro
m D
anse
reau
. G
raen
. &
Hag
a (1
975)
. G
racn
&
Cas
hman
(19
75).
and
Gra
en
(197
6) (
num
- be
r of
item
s no
t re
porte
d)
VDL
(4 it
ems)
(C
ashm
an.
1976
)
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
(4 i
tem
s)
(sou
rce
of s
cale
not
rep
ortc
dk
In/o
ut
stat
us (
1 ite
m)
(new
sc
ale)
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
(1
2 ite
ms)
(n
ew s
cale
bas
ed o
n G
raen
C
u C’a
shm
an
jiY75
] an
d C
ashm
an.
Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en
& H
aga
j197
hJ)
Dev
iatio
n Sc
ores
cor
rela
ted
with
tu
rnov
er.
Raw
Scor
es;
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es;
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
; C
anon
ical
Cor
rela
tions
; Pa
rt-ca
noni
cal
anal
ysis
. Ra
w Sc
ores
and
bet
wee
n an
d w
ithin
sc
ores
for
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude:
W
ABA.
Ra
w Sc
ores
: C
orre
latio
ns.
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
); C
orre
latio
ns:
Logi
stic
R
egre
ssio
n;
t-tes
ts; P
ath
Anal
ysis
. Ra
w Sc
ores
: C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
): M
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es:
Mut
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
: M
uh.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
(tri
chot
omiz
ed);
Also
var
ianc
e pa
rtitio
ned
as in
Kat
erbe
rg
& H
orn
(198
1).
Raw
Scor
es:
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
stun
v
Tabl
e 2.
(C
~~~~
~~e~
)
Repo
rted
Mea
sure
Us
e&
Anal
ytic
Met
hod
36.
Ferri
s (1
985)
LM
X (5
ite
ms)
(G
raen
, Li
den,
&
Noe
l. 19
82~1
)
37.
Lide
n (1
985)
LM
X an
d Le
ader
ship
In
terp
erso
nal
Sens
itivi
ty (
7 ite
ms)
ada
pted
fro
m
Gra
en
& C
ashm
an
(197
5),
and
Lide
n &
Gra
en
(198
0)
VDL
(4 it
ems)
(C
ashm
an,
1976
) N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (4
ite
ms)
(so
urce
of
sca
le n
ot r
epor
ted)
38
. Sn
yder
&
Brun
ing
(198
5)
39.
Vecc
hio
(198
5)
41.
Duc
hon,
G
reen
. &
Tabe
r (1
9886
)
42.
Scan
dura
, G
raen
, &
Nov
ak
(198
6)
43.
Vecc
hio,
G
riffe
th,
& N
om
(198
6)
44.
Die
nesc
h (1
987)
45.
Fairh
urst
, R
oger
s, &
Sa
ar
( 198
7)
46.
Gas
t (1
987)
47.
Laga
ce
(198
7)
5-ite
m
scal
e ad
apte
d fro
m 4
-item
N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e sc
ale
(use
d in
G
raen
&
Cas
hman
[1
975]
): al
so u
sed
nom
inat
ions
of
bes
t an
d w
orst
w
orkin
g re
latio
nshi
ps
LMX-
7 (G
raen
, N
ovak
, &
Som
mer
kam
p,
1982
b; S
cand
ura
62 G
raen
, 19
84)
LMX
(5 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en.
Lide
n,
&, H
oe],
1982
a)
4-ite
m
LMX
scal
e (d
escr
ibed
as
typ
ical
of
prev
ious
LM
X m
easu
res)
; At
tribu
tion/
Expe
ctat
ion
(15
item
s)(D
iene
sch,
19
86);
Beha
vior
al
Inci
dent
sc
ale
(9 i
tem
s)(D
iene
sch,
19
86);
a sin
gle
item
to
asse
ss th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n se
lf an
d ot
her
dyad
mem
ber;
3 be
havi
orai
in
di-
cato
rs o
f LM
X 7
item
s ad
apte
d fro
m N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e sc
ale
(Gra
en
& C
ashm
an.
1975
and
Lid
en
& G
raen
, 19
80);
Rel
atio
nal
codi
ng
sche
me
(Rog
ers
& Fa
race
, 19
75)
LMX
asse
ssed
with
5
scal
es fr
om N
ovak
& G
raen
’s (1
982)
M
anag
er-
Empl
oyee
Q
uest
ionn
aire
: 8-
item
LM
X (N
ovak
. 19
85);
Trus
t (3
ite
ms;
Rob
erts
&
Q’R
eilly
[3
974]
and
Nov
ak
[198
2]);
Avai
labi
lity
(Nov
ak,
1982
); As
sist
ance
with
unc
erta
inty
(N
ovak
, 19
82);
Parli
cipa-
lio
n (N
ovak
, 19
82)
7 ite
ms
deve
lope
d by
Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
and
Som
mer
kam
p (1
982b
)
Dev
iatio
n Sc
ores
for
LM
X:
Raw
Scor
es f
or
othe
r va
riabl
es:
WAB
A.
Raw
Scor
es; t
-test
s.
Raw
Scor
es: M
utt.
Reg
ress
ion.
Av
erag
e an
d D
evia
tion
Scor
es u
sed
for
LMX;
Ra
w Sc
ores
for
oth
er
varia
bles
: C
orre
latio
ns:
Hit
Rat
e An
alys
is.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns.
Raw
Scor
es;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
): Pa
rtial
C
orrr-
la
tions
. Ra
w Sc
ores
: Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n;
Hie
rarc
hica
l R
egre
ssio
n (a
ggre
gate
d va
lues
for
st
ep 1
, ind
ivid
ual
valu
es f
or s
tep
2).
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
Stru
ctur
al
Equa
- tio
ns M
odel
ing
(SEM
).
Raw
Scor
es: C
orre
latio
ns:
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
---~.
(L
~ilrr
LMre
il,
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
Stud
y R
epor
ted
Mea
sure
U
sed”
49.
Nov
ak &
G
raen
(1
987)
50.
Vecc
hio
(198
7)
51.
Blau
(1
988)
52.
K’O
bony
o (1
988)
53.
Lean
a (1
988)
54.
Peck
(1
988)
55.
Scan
dura
(1
988)
56.
Sidh
u (1
988)
57.
Stei
ner
(198
8)
58.
Wak
abay
ashi
, G
raen
, G
raen
, &
Gra
en
(198
8)
59.
Fairh
urst
&
Cha
ndle
r (1
989)
LMX-
7 (G
raen
, N
ovak
, 6;
r Som
mer
kam
p,
1982
b: S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Am
afyt
ic M
ehod
Raw
Scor
es;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
60.
Hen
eman
, G
reen
berg
er,
& An
onyu
o (1
989)
LMX
(4 i
tem
s) (
Lide
n &
Gra
en,
1980
)
Qua
lity
of R
elat
ions
hip
(3 i
tem
s)
(new
sc
ale;
bas
ed o
n D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a [1
975]
) 15
item
s fro
m t
he 1
7-ite
m
LMX
scal
e of
Gra
en
(198
5)
LMX
(9 i
tem
s} b
ased
on
disc
ussi
on
in L
iden
&
Gra
en
(198
0)
7-ite
m L
MX
scal
e (G
raen
ci
ted
as au
thor
on
que
stio
nnai
re
in a
ppen
dix;
ite
ms
are
iden
tical
to
tho
se r
epor
ted
in S
cand
ura
& Gr
aen
[198
4],
with
m
inor
wo
rd
chan
ges)
LM
X-7
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
f7-it
em
scal
e (re
fere
nced
G
raen
an
d as
soci
ates
)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
(1
2 ite
ms)
(ne
w sc
ale
base
d on
Gra
en
& C
ashm
an
1197
51 a
nd C
ashm
an,
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
1197
67; it
em c
on-
tent
app
ears
si
mila
r to
Wak
abay
ashi
&
Gra
en
1198
41)
7 ite
ms
adap
ted
from
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
scal
e (G
raen
&
Cas
hman
, 19
75 a
nd L
iden
&
Gra
en,
1980
); C
onve
rsat
iona
l an
alys
is o
f con
flict
si
tuat
ion
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
res-
si
on;
ANO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es;
ANO
VA;
Hie
rarc
hica
l R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
LMX
scor
es tr
icho
tom
ized
fo
r vi
sual
in
spec
tion;
Ra
w Sc
ores
use
d fo
r C
orre
la-
tions
an
d AN
OVA
s.
Raw
scor
es;
Sim
ple
and
Hie
rarc
hica
l R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
scor
es;
Hie
rarc
hica
l R
egre
ssio
n;
Cor
rela
tions
; C
anon
ical
Cor
rela
tion:
SE
M.
Raw
Scor
es; A
NO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es
(tric
hoto
miz
ed);
Con
vers
a-
tion
anal
ysis
.
Nom
inat
ions
of
bes
t an
d wo
rst
rela
tions
hips
Ra
w Sc
ores
; AN
OVA
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
Stud
y Re
porte
d M
easu
re
Used
” An
alyt
ic M
etho
d
61.
Kozlo
wsk
i &
Doh
erty
(1
989)
62.
Seer
s (1
989)
63.
Wak
abay
ashi
&
Gra
en
(198
9)
64.
65.
66.
67.
Wei
tzel
&
Gra
en
(198
9)
Zale
sny
& Ki
rsch
(1
989)
Dob
bins
, C
ardy
, &
Plat
z-Vi
eno
(199
0)
Doc
kery
&
Stei
ner
(199
0)
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
Gra
en,
Wak
abay
ashi
, G
raen
, &
Gra
en
(199
0)
Laga
ce
(199
0)
Nys
trom
(1
9~)
Tann
er
& C
astle
berry
(1
990)
Turb
an,
Jone
s. &
Roz
elle
(1
990)
W
hi-B
ien,
Ti
erne
y,
Gra
en.
2 m
easu
res
of n
egot
iatin
g la
titud
e:
7-ite
m
LMX
scal
e (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
and
Mea
sure
of
Inf
orm
atio
n Ex
chan
ge
(13
item
s de
velo
ped
for
stud
y)
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion;
D
icho
to-
mize
d LM
X an
d Bo
x M
tes
t fo
r ho
mog
e-
neity
of
varia
nce:
M
ANQ
VA
and
ANO
VA.
Team
M
embe
r Ex
chan
ge
(10
item
s) (
new
scal
e);
som
e ite
ms
adap
ted
from
Se
ers
& G
raen
(1
984)
; LM
X (7
item
s)
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
~erk
amp,
19
82b)
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
: M
u&.
Reg
ress
ion;
AN
CG
VA.
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
(n
umbe
r of
item
s no
t re
porte
d in
stu
dy 1
; 14
item
s us
ed i
n st
udy
2) (
new
scal
e; b
ased
on
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
[197
6];
cont
ent
area
s si
mila
r to
Wak
abay
ashi
&
Gra
en
[198
4])
Qua
lity
of t
he W
orkin
g R
elat
ions
hip
(25
item
s fro
m
Gra
en
& Sc
an-
dura
[1
985]
, in
cludi
ng
LMX-
7 ite
ms
[Gra
en
& Sc
andu
ra,
1984
1)
LMX
(6 it
ems)
de
velo
ped
by D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
975)
and
G
raen
&
Schi
eman
n (1
978)
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es;
Mut
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; Si
mila
rity
Indi
ces.
N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (2
item
s)
(Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
19
75)
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
LM
X (1
6 ite
ms)
ada
pted
fro
m 1
7-ite
m L
MX
scal
e (G
raen
&
Scan
dura
, 19
85)
for
supe
rvis
ors;
LM
X (1
2 ite
ms)
ad
apte
d fro
m 1
7-ite
m
LMX
scal
e (G
raen
&
Scan
dura
. 19
85)
for
subo
rdin
ates
LM
X (1
2 ite
ms)
ba
sed
on G
raen
&
Cas
hman
(1
975)
an
d C
ashm
an.
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga
(197
6)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
6% G
raen
, 19
84)
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
Q
ualit
y (5
ite
ms)
(G
raen
, Li
den,
&
Hoe
], 19
82a)
LM
X (1
7 ite
ms)
(G
raen
, 19
85):
LMX
(4 it
ems)
(G
raen
&
Schi
eman
n.
1978
); LM
X (4
ite
ms)
(R
osse
& K
raut
, 19
83);
LMX
(1 i
tem
) (V
ecch
io
& G
obde
l, 19
84)
Dev
iatio
n sc
ores
for
LM
X;
Raw
scor
es f
or
othe
r va
riabl
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; M
uft.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
; M
ANG
VA
Raw
Scor
es;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized
in s
tudy
1 a
nd
trich
otom
~ed
in s
tudy
2);
Cor
rela
tions
: AN
OVA
. LM
X (4
ite
ms)
ad
apte
d fro
m
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
. 19
84)
Raw
Scor
es: M
ANO
VA.
LMX
(14
item
s) (
Gra
en
& Sc
andu
ra
1198
71 re
fere
nced
as
sou
rce)
Ra
w Sc
ores
; C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. &
Wak
abay
ashi
(1
990)
R
egre
ssio
n.
Stud
y
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
Repo
rted
Mea
sure
Us
ed“
Anal
ytic
Met
hod
iT
.f 74
. W
akab
ayas
hi,
Gra
en,
& U
hl-B
ien
(199
0)
75.
Way
ne &
Fer
ris
(199
0)
76.
Yam
mar
ino
& D
ubiis
ky
Verti
cal
Exch
ange
(1
4 ite
ms)
(W
akab
ayas
hi,
Gra
en,
Gra
en,
& G
raen
, 19
88)
ww
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Supe
rvis
or
Atte
ntio
n (9
dim
.);
Latit
ude
(4 it
ems)
(D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Haga
, 19
75)
77.
Basu
(1
991)
LM
X (5
item
s) m
odifi
ed
from
Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp
(198
2b)
and
Seer
s &
Gra
en
(198
4)
78.
Del
uga
& Pe
rry (
1991
) 6
item
s of
17-
item
LM
X sc
ale
(Gra
en
& Sc
andu
ra,
1985
) 80
. Kr
one
(199
1)
LMX
(5 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oel,
1982
a)
81.
McC
lane
(1
991a
) N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (4
ite
ms)
ad
apte
d fro
n Li
den
& G
raen
(1
980)
82.
McC
lane
(1
991b
) 83
. Sa
lzman
n &
Gra
sha
(199
1)
84.
Step
ina,
Pe
mew
e,
Has
sell,
H
arris
, &
May
field
(1
991)
85
. U
hl-B
ien
(199
1)
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
(4 i
tem
s) a
dapt
ed
from
Lid
en
& G
raen
(1
980)
LM
X sc
ale
(5 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oel,
1982
a)
LMX
(4 it
ems)
(G
raen
&
Cas
hman
, 19
75)
86.
Wal
dron
(1
991)
LMX
(14
item
s)
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b
and
Wak
abay
ashi
, G
raen
, G
raen
, &
Gra
en,
1988
) LM
X (5
item
s)
(Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oel,
1982
a)
87.
Baug
h (1
992)
88.
Car
neva
le
& W
echs
ler
(199
2)
LMX
(14
item
s) (
Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
197
5; G
raen
&
Cas
hman
, 19
75;
Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
LM
X (5
ite
ms)
ada
pted
fro
m D
anse
reau
, C
ashm
an,
& G
raen
(1
973)
89.
Day
&
Cra
m
(199
2)
LMX-
7 fo
r su
bord
inat
es
(Sca
ndur
a &
Gra
en,
1984
); LM
X (3
item
s}
for
supe
rvis
ors
(new
sc
ale)
90
. D
elug
a (1
992)
91
. D
uneg
an,
Duc
hon,
&
Uhl
-Bie
n (1
992)
LMX
(17
item
s)
(Gra
en
& Sc
andu
ra,
1985
) S-
item
sca
le a
dapt
ed
from
4-it
em
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
(use
d in
G
raen
&
Cas
hman
[19
75J)
: als
o us
ed n
omin
atio
ns
of b
est
and
wor
st
wor
king
rela
tions
hips
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
s-
;‘;
sion
; Pa
th A
naly
sis.
3
Raw
Scor
es: S
EM.
3
WAB
A.
E 5 3 Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n;
Logi
stic
3
Reg
ress
ion.
.-
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
s a
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
; AN
OVA
. >
Raw
Scor
es”;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
2 Re
gres
sion.
-5
Ra
w Sc
ore@
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
-. lm
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
MAN
OVA
.
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
): C
orre
latio
ns;
MAN
OVA
. Ra
w Sc
ores
; Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
res-
si
on;
WAB
A.
Raw
Scor
es;
Fact
or A
naly
sis;
C
orre
latio
ns:
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Stud
y
92.
Dun
egan
, Ti
erne
y,
& D
ucho
n (1
992)
93
. G
erra
s (1
992)
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
Repo
rted
Mea
sure
Us
ed”
h-ite
m
scal
e KI
anse
reau
. G
racn
. &
Haa
a. 1
97.5
: Duc
hon,
G
reen
, &
Tabe
r, 19
86; G
raen
&
Cas
hman
, 19
%; &
andu
ra
& G
raen
, 19
&1)
24 it
ems
deve
lope
d,
desig
ned
to m
easu
re D
iene
sch
& Li
den’
s (1
986)
di
men
sion
s
Anal
ytic
Met
hod
Raw
Scor
es:
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ANO
VA:
7-ite
m
LMX
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b;
Sca
ndur
a &
Gra
en,
1984
)
Hie
rarc
hica
l R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion;
H
iera
rch-
ic
al R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; R
egre
ssio
n;
Dich
otom
ized
LMX
scor
es, r
-test
s.
WAB
A;
Raw
scor
e AN
OVA
.
94.
Ges
sner
(19
92)
96.
Mar
kham
, P
/furr
y, &
Sc
ott
ww
97.
Schr
iesh
eim
, N
eide
r, Sc
an-
dura
, &
Tepp
er
(199
2a)
98 S
chrie
shei
m,
Scan
dura
, Ei
senb
ach,
&
Nei
der
(199
2b)
99.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
Tier
ney
(199
2)
Yam
mar
ino
& D
ubin
sky
WQ
)
Baug
h,
Gra
en,
& Pa
ge (
1993
)
Dua
rte,
Goo
dson
, &
Klic
h (1
993)
Fa
irhur
st
(199
3)
Jone
s, G
lam
an,
& Jo
hnso
n (1
993)
Ju
dge
& Fe
rris
(199
3)
4-ite
m
scal
e ad
apte
d fro
m
D-it
em
Lead
ersh
ip
Atte
ntio
n sc
ale
(Dan
sere
au,
Alut
to,
& Ya
mm
arin
o,
1984
) LM
X (6
ite
ms)
(n
ew
scal
e)
Raw
Scor
es; S
EM:
Cor
rela
tions
.
LMX
(6 i
tem
s)
(S~h
~esh
eim
, N
eide
r, Sc
andu
ra.
& Te
pper
, 19
92af
Ra
w Sc
ores
; SEM
; C
orre
latio
ns.
LMX
(14
item
s)
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
D
evia
tion
Scor
es f
or L
MX;
Ra
w Sc
ores
for
ot
her
varia
bles
; C
orre
latio
ns:
Mui
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
WAB
A.
Lead
ersh
ip
Atte
ntio
n,
Job
Latit
ude
(Dan
sere
au,
Gra
en,
& H
aga,
197
5)
(num
ber
of it
ems
not
repo
rted}
; Sa
tisfa
ctio
n w
ith
Perfo
rman
ce
(1 it
em)
(Dan
sere
au,
Alut
to,
Mar
kham
, &
Dum
as,
1982
); Jo
b C
on-
grue
nce
(1 i
tem
) (D
anse
reau
, Al
utto
, M
arkh
am,
& D
umas
, 19
82)
Cen
troid
ite
m f
rom
14
-item
LM
X sc
ale
(dis
cuss
ed i
n G
raen
&
Cas
hman
, 19
75)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
. 19
84)
7 ite
ms
adap
ted
from
Neg
otia
ting
Latit
ude
scal
e (G
raen
Bc
Cas
hman
, 19
75 a
nd L
iden
&
Gra
en,
1980
)
LMX
(8 i
tem
s)
adap
ted
from
Sca
ndur
a &
Gra
en
(198
4)
LMX
(5 i
tem
s)
adap
ted
from
Dan
sere
au.
Gra
en,
& H
aga
(197
5) a
nd
Gra
en
& Sc
hiem
ann
(197
8)
Raw
Scor
es: M
ANC
OVA
; AN
CO
VA.
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
LMX
scor
es u
sed
to c
lass
ify s
ubje
cts
as in
-, m
iddl
e-,
or o
ut-g
roup
; fo
nver
sa-
tiona
l An
alys
is.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns.
Raw
Scor
es; S
EM.
Stud
y
107.
Lid
en,
Way
ne,
& St
ilwel
l
Tabl
e 2.
(C
o~~i
~~ed
)
Repo
rted
Mea
sure
Us
ed”
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Anal
ytic
Met
hod
Raw
Scor
es: M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
(1
993)
10
8. M
urry
(1
993)
LM
X (5
item
s)
adap
ted
from
Sca
ndur
a &
Gra
en
(198
4)
and
Gra
en,
WAB
A.
109.
Phi
llips,
D
uran
, &
Howe
11
(199
3)
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp
(198
2b)
18-it
em
Attri
butio
n/Ex
pect
atio
n sc
ale
(Die
nesc
h,
1985
)
110.
Sco
tt (1
993)
LM
X (1
4 ite
ms)
(re
porte
d as
dev
elop
ed
by G
raen
, N
ovak
, &
Som
mer
- ka
mp
[ 198
2b])
111.
Tan
ner,
Dun
n,
& C
honk
o (1
993)
11
2. T
ansk
y (1
993)
113.
Van
sude
van
(199
3)
114.
Vec
chio
(1
993)
Exch
ange
R
elat
ions
hip
Qua
lity
(6 it
ems)
(n
ew
scal
e)
LMX
(7 it
ems)
(G
raen
&
Cas
bman
, 19
75; t
his
is a
4-it
em
scal
e)
LMX
(mod
ified
ve
rsio
n of
14-
item
sca
le)
(sou
rce
of s
cale
not
rep
orte
d)
LMX
(4 it
ems)
(L
iden
&
Gra
en,
1980
)
Expl
orat
ory
and
Con
firm
ator
y Fa
ctor
2 3
Anal
ysis
(C
FA).
2 Ra
w Sc
ores
; Cor
rela
tions
: M
ult.
Reg
res-
si
on;
SEM
. %
Raw
Scor
es (
trich
otom
ized
): M
ANO
VA.
2 s 2 Ra
w Sc
ores
; t-t
ests
: C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es; C
lust
er A
naly
sis;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion;
SE
M.
Raw
Scor
es f
or L
MX
(tric
hoto
miz
ed);
Intra
clas
s C
orre
latio
n C
oeffi
cien
t fo
r one
va
riabl
e;
Cor
rela
tions
; AN
OVA
; Su
b-
grou
p An
alys
is.
115.
Way
ne &
Gre
en
(199
3)
116.
Wilh
elm
, H
erd,
&
Stei
ner
(199
3)
117.
Ash
kana
sy &
O’C
onno
r ( 1
994)
118.
Bau
er
& G
reen
(1
994)
11
9. B
orch
grev
ink
& Bo
ster
(1
994)
12
0. D
elug
a &
Perry
(1
994)
12
1. D
uarte
, G
oods
on,
& Kh
ch
(199
4)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
7-ite
m
LMX
scal
e ad
apte
d fro
m D
anse
reau
, G
raen
, &
Hag
a (1
975)
an
d G
raen
&
Cas
hman
(1
975)
N
egot
iatin
g La
titud
e (4
item
s)
(Lid
en
& G
raen
. 19
80)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
14-it
em
scal
e (o
btai
ned
from
Gra
en,
pers
onal
co
mm
unic
atio
n,
1990
) LM
X (1
7 ite
ms)
(G
raen
&
Scan
dura
, 19
85)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
-5 -. v,
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; AN
OVA
. Ra
w Sc
ores
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Raw
Scor
es (
both
con
tinuo
us
and
cate
gori-
ca
l); M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion;
Mul
tidim
ensio
nal
Scal
ing.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Raw
Scor
es;
CFA
. Ra
w Sc
ores
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mut
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
Stud
y
Tabl
e 2.
(C
ontin
ued)
Rep
orte
d M
easu
re
Use
d#
122.
Kin
icki
&
Vecc
hio
(199
4)
123.
Phi
llips
& Be
deia
n (1
994)
124.
Sca
ndur
a &
Schr
iesh
eim
(1
994)
12
5. S
cott
& Br
uce
(199
4)
126.
Bas
u &
Gre
en
(199
5)
129.
Kel
ler
& D
anse
reau
(1
995)
130.
Kra
mer
(1
995)
131.
Maj
or,
Kozlo
wsk
i, C
hao.
&
Gar
dner
(1
995)
13
2. S
ias
& Ja
blin
(1
995)
133.
Bau
er
& G
reen
(1
996)
13
4. B
hal
& An
sari
(199
6)
13.5
. Mas
lyn,
Far
mer
, &
Fedo
r w
f4
136.
Gre
en,
Ande
rson
, &
Shiv
ers
0.99
6)
138.
Set
toon
, Be
nnet
t, &
Lide
n (1
996)
13
9. T
hibo
deau
x &
Lowe
(1
996)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
. 19
84)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Raw
Scor
es: M
u&.
Reg
ress
ion.
D
evia
tion
Scor
es f
or L
‘MX
corre
late
d w
ith
Raw
Scor
es o
f ot
her
varia
bles
. Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n:
SEM
.
LMX
(14
item
s) (
repo
rted
as de
velo
ped
by G
raen
, N
ovak
, &
Som
mer
- ka
mp
[198
2b])
I(-ite
m s
cale
ada
pted
fro
m G
raen
, N
ovak
&
Som
mer
kam
p (1
982b
) an
d Se
ers
& G
raen
(1
984)
.
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
Mul
t. R
egre
s-
sion
; SE
M.
Raw
Scor
es; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
LMX
(5 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oel,
1982
a) f
or s
uper
viso
rs:
WAB
A.
Mod
ified
vers
ion
of s
ame
scal
e fo
r su
bord
inat
es.
3-le
vel
nom
inal
LM
X sc
ale
(1 i
tem
) (n
ew)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
7 ite
ms
(Gra
en
& C
ashm
an,
1975
)
LMX
(8 i
tem
s)
(Sca
ndur
a &
Gra
en,
1984
) Sa
mpl
e 1:
24
new
item
s, a
nd L
MX
(5 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Lide
n,
& H
oel,
1982
a)
Sam
ple
2: 1
0 ite
ms
(redu
ced
from
Sam
ple
1 re
sults
), an
d ite
ms
of
Atte
ntio
n an
d La
titud
e (D
anse
reau
, Al
utto
, &
Yam
mar
ino,
19
84)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
7 ite
ms
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
LMX-
MDM
(L
iden
&
Mas
lyn,
19
98)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
ANO
VA:
MAN
OVA
. Ra
w Sc
ores
; Mul
t. R
egre
ssio
n.
I;;
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
; t-t
ests
: G
C
hi-s
quar
e.
5;:
Raw
Scor
es: M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Cor
rela
tions
: Fa
ctor
Ana
lysi
s.
; x31
Raw
Scor
es; C
orre
latio
ns;
E an
d F
ratio
s z
of W
ABA
I. r:
Raw
Scor
es: C
orre
latio
ns:
SEM
. 5G
7
Raw
Scor
es; S
EM.
o<
.- Ra
w Sc
ores
: SEM
. ;;
Raw
Scor
es (
dich
otom
ized)
: C
orre
latio
ns:
; C
hi-s
quar
e;
MAN
OVA
.
Stud
y Re
porte
d M
easu
re
Used
0 An
alyt
ic M
etho
d 2 .i
140.
Willi
ams,
G
avin
, &
Willi
ams
LMX
(8 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
Ra
w Sc
ores
; Par
tial
Cor
rela
tions
; Va
rianc
e (1
996)
R
educ
tion
Rat
e; S
EM.
5
141.
Bas
u &
Gre
en
(199
7)
5 ite
ms
(Gra
en.
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
t9
82b;
See
rs &
Gra
en,
1984
) Ra
w Sc
ores
; R
egre
ssio
n;
MAN
OVA
. ;
142.
Eng
le
& Lo
rd
(199
7)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& Sc
hrie
shei
m,
1994
) Ra
w Sc
ores
: Cor
rela
tions
; H
iera
rchi
cal
z R
egre
ssio
n.
s 14
4. W
ayne
, Sh
ore
& Li
den
(199
7)
LMX-
7 (S
cand
ura
& G
raen
, 19
84)
Raw
Scor
es;
CFA
; SE
M.
VI
145.
Kle
in
& Ki
m
(199
8)
LMX
(7 i
tem
s)
(Gra
en,
Nov
ak,
& So
mm
erka
mp,
19
82b)
Ra
w Sc
ores
; AN
OVA
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion.
14
6. L
iden
&
Mas
lyn
(199
8)
LMX-
MDM
(1
3 ite
ms)
(n
ew
scal
e)
Raw
Scor
es;
Cor
rela
tions
; M
ult.
Reg
ress
ion;
SE
M.
147.
Sch
riesh
eim
, N
eide
r, LM
X-6
(Sch
riesh
eim
, N
eide
r, Sc
andu
ra.
& ‘p
eppe
r, 19
92a)
Ra
w Sc
ores
; W
ABA;
M
utt.
Reg
ress
ion.
&
Scan
dura
(1
998)
Nore
. M
odifie
d ve
rsio
ns
of p
revio
usly-
used
in
stru
men
ts
are
labe
led
“new
” ab
ove
if ite
ms
were
ch
ange
d,
adde
d,
or
dele
ted.
” R
efer
ence
s fo
r sc
ale
sour
ce(s
) re
porte
d in
thi
s co
lum
n ar
e th
ose
mad
e by
th
e au
thor
(s)
of t
he
resp
ectiv
e ar
ticle
s.
The
item
s us
ed
in s
tudi
es
in s
ome
inst
ance
s di
d no
t co
rresp
ond
with
th
e cit
atio
n giv
en
by
the
auth
or(s
) as
the
sour
ce
of t
he
mea
sure
. “T
he
LMX-
7 sc
afe
refe
rs
to t
he
7-ite
m
LMX
scal
e re
porte
d in
Sca
ndur
a an
d Gr
aen
(198
4)
and
deve
loped
by
G
raen
, No
vak,
and
Som
mer
kam
p (1
982b
). * O
ne
varia
ble,
Ro
te
Diffe
rent
iatio
n.
was
obta
ined
by
su
mm
ing
the
abso
lute
va
lue
of
diffe
renc
es
betw
een
each
m
embe
r’s
Nego
tiatin
g La
titud
e sc
ore
and
the
mea
n Ne
gotia
ting
Latit
ude
of
the
work
unit.
d M
embe
r sc
ores
on
Ne
gotia
ting
Latit
ude
were
ad
just
ed
to
the
grou
p’s
aver
age.
92 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 70 No. 1 1999
Structure items from the Ohio State studies’ Leader Behavior Description Quesdon- naire (LBDQ), with one study “augmenting” these with 20 additional items (Graen, Dansereau, Minami, & Cashman, 1973a).’ Schriesheim (1980) and Katerberg and Horn (1981) also used Consideration and Initiating Structure items from the revised LBDQ (Schriesheim, 1980, used a modified version of the revised LBDQ [Schries- heim, 19791).
Additionally, the Role Orientation Index (RQI) was used along with the LBDQ by Graen et al. (1972b, 1973a) as a supplementary leadership measure. The Graen et al. (1972s) study used a third measure, Leader-Member Influence, which was reported to be similar to one employed by Tannenbaum (1968).
Leader-member exchange was later measured by the Supervisory Attention scale, also referred to by several other labels (Supervisor Treatment, Leadership Attention, Leadership Support, Leader Attention, and Support). However, as only Haga et al. (1974) give a complete list of items and response categories (caned Supervisor Treatment in that article), it is difficult to determine whether the four studies reporting use of this measure actually used the same instrument. However, the several that did report the content areas they measured presented somewhat different lists (Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973b; Haga et al., 1974; Dansereau et al., 1975; Craen gi Ginsburgh, 1977).
A two-item measure, Negotiating Latitude, was first used by Dansereau et al. (1975) to measure LMX in conjunction with measures of Supervisor Attention (Leadership Attention and Leadership Support). In the same year, Graen and Cashman (1975) published a study that used a four-item measure of Negotiating Latitude: information was not provided regarding this measure. However, reference was made to Haga et al. (1974), Dansereau et al. (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen, Dansereau, Haga, and Cashman (1975). Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) later provided information on two of the four items used in the Graen and Cashman (1975) study, and the two appear similar to the two used by Dansereau et al (1975). No information was given by the authors regarding the two new items’ development or why they were included.
The two-item measure of Negotiating Latitude was also used in two additional studies. Cashman et al. (1976) used a two-item measure called Superior Negotiating Latitude; the two items were similar to Dansereau et al’s (1975) with only minor wording changes. Cashman et al. (1976) also used a three-item measure, Superior Vertical Exchange, but no information was presented regarding the items nor were any sources cited as references for the measure. Graen and Ginsburgh’s (1977) measure, Leader Acceptance, was composed of two items that appear similar to those of the Negotiating Latitude measure of Dansereau et al. (1975).
However, the authors differentiate Leader Acceptance from Negotiating Lati- tude; Leader Acceptance is based on the leader’s response to the two items regarding the member, whereas Negotiating Latitude involves the member’s response concern- ing the leader. This study also looked at Leadership Treatment (as a dependent variable), composed of five scales: Leader Attention, Info~ation, Support, Personal Sensitivity, and Allowance for Self-determination; some content areas appear simi- lar to those in the Supervisor Treatment scale of Haga et al, (1974).
The Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, a four-item measure, was used to
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 93
assess LMX by Graen et al. (1977). One of the items was similar to the first item of Negotiating Latitude (Dansereau et al., 1975), but the measure included three new items. The authors refer to Graen and Cashman (1975) for details on data collection, and state that validity evidence for the measure is presented in Graen and Cashman (197.5) and Cashman and Graen (1977). However, the Graen and Cashman (1975) study does not present the items used, and one of the items Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) report Graen and Cashman (1975) as using was not used by Graen et al. (1977). Graen et al. (1977) used a Leader’s Latitude and Support scale, in addition to the Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, as a measure of leadership. No information was provided regarding the items or the response categories of this measure, nor were any supportive or informative citations given.
Schiemann’s (1977) dissertation did not clearly distinguish between measures used to capture the exchange relationship and those that were just related to it. However, it appears that the Leader Behavior Index [for which Dansereau (1975) is referenced on p. 45 but Dansereau et al. (1975) was apparently meant] and the Dyadic Exchange scale [Graen & Cashman (1975) are cited] were intended as measures of the exchange relationship. The Leader Behavior Index consisted of three subscales: (1) Information, for which some item content appears similar to the Supervisory Attention scale (Graen et al., 1973b) and the Supervisory Treatment scale (Haga et al., 1974); (2) Assurance and Attention (consisting of four items, all corresponding to the Supervisory Attention scale; Graen et al., 1973b); and (3) Support, appearing to correspond to the Leadership Support scale as described by Graen and Ginsburgh (1977). The second instrument Schiemann used to measure the exchange relationship, the Dyadic Exchange scale, is composed of four items which appear to be a combination of those used in the Negotiating Latitude scales of Graen et al. (1977) and Graen and Schiemann (1978).
A four-item measure of LMX was again used in 1978 by Graen and Schiemann, with two new items and two items drawn from the Negotiating Latitude scale of Dansereau et al. (1975) ( minor wording changes were made). The authors refer- enced Graen and Cashman (1975) as having extended and validated the Dansereau et al. (1975) measure, so it is possible that the two “new” items were actually the same as those used by Graen and Cashman (1975); however, it is not possible to determine whether this is the case, since Graen and Cashman (1975) did not report their items.
The 1980s did not bring any clearer consensus in LMX measurement, although the development of a seven-item scale used in Graen et al. (1982b) and reported in Scandura and Graen (1984) (LMX-7) has become the most commonly-used measure for LMX operationalization (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The majority of LMX research throughout the 1980s continued to use many different LMX scales, without providing clear rationale for the use of a particular measure and without much (if any) psychometric support for the soundness of the measures employed. Graen and his colleagues used 5-,7-, 12-, 14-, and 17-item measures of LMX during this period, as well as a four-item Negotiating Latitude scale (see Table 2).
The rest of the research in the 1980s employed 16 different measures, reported to assess Negotiating Latitude (two- and four-item scales), Influence Opportunity, Vertical Exchange, Leadership Attention, LMX (three-, four-, five-, six-, seven-,
94 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1499
nine-, lo-, and 25item scales), Non-Contractual Social Exchange, and VDL, as well as nominations of best and worst working relationships. As mentioned previously. most studies (1) did not indicate the rationale for choosing a particular measure; (2) did not provide scale item content (even if the measure was new or modified); or (3) did not indicate the source or origin of the measure (even if an existing scale was used, sources would typically be listed that do not correspond to the measure employed).
As shown in Table 2, LMX measurement in the 1990s is still characterized by researchers using different LMX measures, some of which are developed on an ad- hoc basis or modified from existing measures without adequate psychometric testing. Of the 75 empirical works conducted during this decade and reported in Table 2, numerous different LMX scales were employed. Because of a great deal of variation in reporting practices employed in the studies reviewed, it is difficult to determine whether the scales used were identical to those previously employed or to what extent they were altered, For example, as can be seen in Table 2, measures consisting of the same number of items referenced different studies as the source of the measure, It does appear, at a minimum, that at least 12 different scales were used to measure LMX in the 1990s (since the number of items varied); various studies reported using one-, four-, five-, six-, seven-, eight-, 12-, 13-, 14-, 16-, 17-, and 24- item scales, In addition, Negotiating Latitude (both two- and four-item versions~, Supervisory/Leadership Attention (four- and nine-item scales), Vertical Exchange Quality (five and 14 items), Exchange Relationship Quality (six items), nominations of best and worst working relationships, an Attribution/Expectation scale (18 items), and a three-level “nominal LMX scale” .were used as operationalizations of the construct. The bulk of studies employed either LMX-7 or a five-item LMX measure (it does not appear that the studies used the same five-item scale, however).
Somewhat noteworthy is the recent recommendation by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) that researchers use a revised seven-item LMX measure. This new scale is quite similar to the LMX-7, with the major difference being a change in response categories (from four to five categories and revised scale anchors). However, it is unclear as to why this new measure is recommended and, unfortunately, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) provide no evidence of adequate psychometric testing of the newly revised LMX-7 scale. [As noted by Schriesheim et al. (1993) and others, making even minor modifications to a scale may change its psychometric properties, so that testing revised measures is essential to the development of con~den~e in their psychometric adequacy.]
Several similar but slightly different versions of LMX measures have also evolved from the LMX research stream. Seers (1989) developed a lo-item Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale that was adapted from an LMX scale used in Seers and Graen (1984). Uhl-Bien and Graen (1992) used a Project LMX (PLMX) scale and a Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale. The PLMX measure consisted of one item with a 5-point response scale (the item and the end anchors were reported). The Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale was a seven-item scale, and both Seers (1989) and Uhl-Bien (1991) were referenced but the items and response categories were not given. Baugh, Graen, and Page (1993) used several scales, all reported to measure LMX. They used two “process measures,” both single-item scales; the first
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 95
was described as the “centroid item from the fourteen-item LMX scale (Graen and Cashman, 1975)” (Baugh et al., 1993, p. 10) and the second was said to be the “centroid item from the 7-item team member exchange scale” (Baugh et al., 1993, p. 10) (no reference was given for this second measure). Although only one item of each measure was used for data analysis, both of the scales from which the items came were included in their entirety on the research questionnaire. The two process measure items and their response categories were listed, and the response alterna- tives listed for the two items which made up the process measures are identical to the response categories listed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) for a similar question they present in their recommended LMX measure.
Paralleling the development of the LMX measure as described above, another measure of exchange quality, Vertical Exchange, was developed by Wakabayashi, Minami, Hashimoto, Sano, Graen, and Novak (1981), and consisted of 12 items. The items and response categories were not provided, but the authors indicated the five content areas from which the items were drawn, and the Graen and Cashman (1975) study (which used a four-item measure) was referenced. A 12-item Vertical Exchange scale was also used by Wakabayashi and Graen (1984) and by Wakabay- ashi, Graen, Graen, and Graen (1988) both listing five content areas measured by the scale and both referencing Graen and Cashman (1975) (a four-item measure) and Cashman et al. (1976) ( a t wo-item Superior Negotiating Latitude scale and a three-item Superior Vertical Exchange measure). Wakabayashi and Graen’s 1989 investigation involved two studies, each employing Vertical Exchange measures: one for which four content areas were discussed, and a second which consisted of 14 items (the items and response categories were not presented for either). Both referenced Dansereau et al.% (1975) study, which utilized a two-item measure.
Addressing the multidimensionality of the LMX construct, several different mea- sures have been developed to assess the mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty subdimensions that were suggested by Dienesch and Liden (1986) as being the key subdimensions of LMX. Dienesch (1987) used two scales developed by Dienesch (1986) to measure the three dimensions hypothesized by Dienesch and Liden (1986): an Attribution/Expectation scale and a Behavioral Incident scale. Gerras (1992) developed a 24-item scale designed to measure these three subdimensions. Phillips. Duran, and Howell (1993) used 18 of 20 items from an Attribution/Expectation scale (developed by Dienesch, 1986) to measure the three subdimensions. Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, and Tepper (1992a) developed and Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisen- bath, and Neider (1992b) further validated a six-item measure with two items for each subdimension. Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed a 13-item scale that includes these three dimensions plus the added dimension of professional respect. Both the LMX-6 of Schriesheim et al. (1992a) and the LMX-MDM of Liden and Maslyn (1998) have undergone reasonable psychometric testing and have shown promising evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity.
Summary Given the history of LMX research which is chronicled above, it is not surprising
that confusion exists within the literature about the nature of the phenomenon or that equivocal relationships have sometimes been found with expected outcomes
96 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19%
(Gerstner & Day, 1997). Additionally, mirroring other leadership domains, without the use of a single construct definition and operationalization, it is very difficult to make comparisons across studies or to make incremental progress in replicating study findings. Finally, it should be noted that even the primary developer of LMX theory himself has at times expressed uncertainty as to what some of the LMX research instruments actually measure.
In Graen’s (1976) discussion of two previous studies, Dansereau et al. (1975) and Haga et al. (1974), he questions, “What was ‘negotiating latitude’ measuring? Obviously we had a handle on an important phenomena [sic], but what was its nature?” (Graen, 1976, p. 1240). The measure of negotiating latitude (the variable used to indicate development of a dyadic structure in initial LMX studies) was purported to “assess the relative openness of a leader to individualized assistance for a member” (Graen & Cashman, 1975, p. 145). Seven years later the same items, now referred to as LMX, were characterized as assessing individualized leadership (Graen et al., 1982a, p, 869) and the quality of LMX (Graen et al., 1982b, p. 118). The same inconsistency and confusion appears to exist for the LMX-7 and revised LMX-7 scales (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Simply put, this is highly problematic, and we consider this issue further in the discussion and conclusion sections of this article.
Analytic Practices in Research
While theory specification and measurement are critical aspects of increasing knowledge in any research domain, the analysis of data collected tells us what really exists with regard to the phenomenon of interest. Klein et al. (1994) point out that incorrect conclusions may be drawn when the level of a theory, its construct measurement, and the statistical analyses employed to test the theory are not the same. Furthermore, considering only one level of analysis and excluding others can cause the researcher to miss, hide, or improperly identify effects (Yamma~no & Dansereau, 1995), and a recent study by Schriesheim et al. (1995) clearly suggests the necessity of first theoretically identi~ing the level of analysis at which a phenom- enon of interest occurs and then empirically assessing whether the tested relation- ships align with those levels of analysis.
LMX theory of the 1980s and early 1990s appears to have accepted the position that the dyad (i.e., the relationship between a leader and each of his/her subordi- nates) is the level of analysis at which effects could be expected to manifest (cf. Graen et al., 1982a, p. 871).’ Some LMX researchers have even asserted that the LMX approach is a better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS ap- proach (e.g., Graen et al., 1982a; Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). A major problem with this assertion, however, is the fact that it cannot be supported without the use of analytic techniques which are appropriate for testing multi-level theories. This is true because while the ALS and VDL models are theoretically mutually exclusive, they have been found to operate concurrently in some data sets (cf., Dansereau et al., 1982; Nachman, Dansereau, & Naughton, 1983) (perhaps because a supervisor can act similarly across subordinates on one behavioral dimension while behaving differently with the same subordinates on another dimension; Dansereau et al., 1982).
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 97
Table 3. Summa~ of Analytic Meth~ology Employed in LMX Studies
Time Period
1910-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995+” Total
Total number of studies 6 8 20 28 57 18 137 Number of studies using raw
scores and ordinary raw score analyse? 6 8 15 2s 49 16 119
Number of studies using within- and between-partitioned scores
and WABA 0 0 2 1 5 2 10 Other’ 0 0 3 2 3 0 8
’ It should be noted that the numbers shown in this cohtmn (1995+) are not for a full five-year period, as are the other columns in this table (e.g., 1970-1974). ‘While Bhal and Ansari (1996) did use WABA I to analyze the variation in the raw scores, WABA II was not employed. Additionally, the information obtained from the WABA I results was not utilized (i.e., a “within-groups” effect was found, yet raw scores were inte~reted). Therefore, this study is not included in the WABA category below but rather is included in the Raw Score category. C Studies using some combination of raw and partitioned scores and a methodology other than WABA.
Table 3 thus presents a brief summary of the analyses employed in the 137 empirical LMX studies we uncovered and examined for this review (further detail on the analyses used in these studies is provided in the right-hand column of Table 2). Although there are several approaches which might be employed to test for different levels of analysis, the within- and between-entities analytical technique of Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) appears to be the only fully appropriate one used in the literature to date (hierarchical linear modeling and other potenti~ly suitable approaches have apparently not been employed thus far). We therefore briefly use this approach to illustrate why the testing of multiple levels is critical for research in domains such as leader-member exchange.
saga: An l~~usfraf~o~ of boy Mu~f~p/e Levels Must Be Tested The basic practice which underlies within- and between-entities analysis
(WABA) is to partition data into within-cells (deviation from cell average) and between-cells (cell average) components, where the cells represent analytic entities such as work groups. The relationships which result from these calculations may be summarized in an overall equation as follows (cf. Dansereau et al., 1984):
“BX”B,‘B,, + “Wx’W,qW,, = rTxy, (1)
where ?B, and ?B, are the between-entity etas for variables x and y, TWX and ?W, are the corresponding within-entity etas, (Bs and ‘W,.. are the corresponding between-entity and wi~in-entity correlations, and rTXy is the raw-score or total correlation.
qW, and “W, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores ([x”] or [y”]) with the appropriate within-entity deviation scores ([x, - xk] or [yn - yk]) for n parts (e.g., the 1 to n respondents) within k entities (e.g., the 1 to X work units); “B, and ?B, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores of the n parts ([x,] or [yJ) with
98 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
their between-entity scores (i.e., the appropriate [xk] or [yk] for the entity within which each part is situated). The within-entity correlation may be computed by correlating the within-entity deviation scores (i.e., [” - x~] and [y” - yh]) for the n parts, while the between-entity correlation may be computed by assigning each part its appropriate between-entity scores ([xk] and [yk]) and then correlating these across the parts (i.e., between-entity correlations are simply correlations between the entity means. weighted by the number of parts within each entity).
As can be seen from the fundamental WABA equation (Equation l), any raw score correlation is just the sum of two separate components-a between-entity (cell) component (3BxqBy’Bxy) and a within-entity (deviation) component (~W~~W~rW~~); both are the products of multiplying their appropriate etas and component correla- tions. Thus, for example, a raw score correlation of 0.00 may be highly misleading if it is based upon a large negative within-entity component and a large positive between-entity component (the conclusion drawn would be one of “no relationship,” while the data actually support a negative within- and a positive between-entities relationship). Consequently, raw score correlations (IT,,) cannot be unambiguously interpreted-the explicit examination of levels of analysis is absolutely critical for the drawing of sound conclusions.
Analysis in LMX Research As shown briefly in Table 3, although researcher recognition of the importance
of testing hypotheses for level of analysis inferences appears to have increased over time, to date only a total of 10 (of 137) empirical studies provide analytically sound evidence that can speak about support (or nonsupport) for LMX theory at a particular level of analysis. Ten studies certainly cannot be considered a “weight of evidence” in favor of the basic LMX or VDL hypothesis, particularly because not all of these studies have found support for more within- than between-groups effects. Thus, the extant evidence appears to belie the assertion that the VDLl LMX approach is clearly more empirically supported than is the ALS approach. Additional research which utilizes appropriate data-analytic techniques is needed before we can say with any certainty that one approach is more strongly supported than the other.
Furthermore, and as can be seen from examining Table 2, none of the 10 studies which did use appropriate data-~alytic methods also used what would be considered a fully acceptable LMX measure today (i.e., the LMX-7 scale; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In the 1980-84 period, Dansereau et al. (1982) used an 11-item Leadership Attention scale, and Nachman et al. (1983) used a two-item Negotiating Latitude measure. In 1985-89, Ferris (1985) used the five-item LMX measure of Graen et al. (1982a). In 1990-94, Yamma~no and Dubinsky (1990, 1992) used measures of Supervisor Attention and Latitude (the second study also employed one-item measures of Satisfaction with Performance and Job Congruence), while Baugh (1992) used a 1Citem LMX scale. Markham, Murry, and Scott (1992) employed a four-item Leadership Attention measure that was derived from Dansereau et al.% (1984) 11-item scale, while Murry (1993) used a five-item LMX scale derived from that of Scandura and Graen (1984) and Graen et al. (1982b).
Finally, and most recently, Keller and Dansereau (1995) employed a five-item
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 99
LMX scale which was taken from Graen et al. (1982a), while Schriesheim, Neider, and Scandura (1998) used Schriesheim et al.‘s (1992a, 1992b) six-item LMX scale. Thus, even discounting Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) recent contention that the LMX-7 is the only measure which should be used, it seems clear that at least five of the 10 studies that used an appropriate analytic technique also used measures which are questionable operationalizations of the LMX construct (Dansereau et al., 1982; Markham et al., 1992; Nachman et al., 1983; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1990, 1992).
DISCUSSION
This review has examined and summarized 147 works which were completed since the constructs of VDL and LMX were first investigated in 1972. Several important difficulties have been highlighted and discussed. Some may view the numerous definitions and subdimensions of LMX, the multiple measures, and the unspecified level(s) and analysis to be part of the “richness” of LMX. However, we feel that there is a good possibility of further developing the potential of the LMX approach by providing greater clarity in the theoretical conceptualization of the construct and by enhanced measurement and attention to level(s) of analysis concerns. Thus, we make some brief recommendations with respect to needed theory, measurement, and analysis in future LMX research.
Theory
As we discussed during our review of LMX theory, it has evolved substantially over the past 25 years. This is good. One of the major criticisms which has been advanced about other leadership theories is that there has been a lack of respon- siveness to constructive criticisms provided by the field, as well as a failure to incorporate needed changes as evidence has accumulated (cf. Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b). Neither of these criticisms can be leveled at LMX theory.
On the other hand, we believe that some of the changes which have been made in LMX theory have not be accompanied by an adequate explanation of those changes or the theoretical rationale which underlies them. For example, if the theoretical definitions of LMX which are provided in Table 1 are examined, along with the subaspects which various writers have specifically mentioned as being included within the LMX construct, one cannot help but be struck by a lot of similarities and a lot of differences. While it would be hoped that work which elaborates or modifies the conceptualization of LMX would include theory, litera- ture and discussion (rationale) which integrates the new treatment with previous work (and which develops it in reasonable detail), this simply has not been done.
As a recent case in point, we believe that Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) most recent revision of the theory does not adequately justify why the theory now only focuses on the relationship between a leader and a follower (and no longer considers the leaders and followers themselves). Additionally, it is now becoming increasingly accepted that “good” theory clearly states the level(s) of analysis at which its hypothesized relationships hold (cf., Klein et al., 1994). Unfortunately, again, the
100 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1994
most current version of LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) now appears to have been modified so that it is unacceptable in this regard. We should note that we are not the only ones believing this-Dansereau et al. (1995a, p. 100) feel that currently the “LMX approach provides little guidance as to how to view leaders or followers from a levels-of-analysis perspective,” and that this is a critical deficiency. Additionally, Dansereau (1995, p. 484) now argues that the newest “LMX approach is simply unclear as to what level [of analysis] it applies.”
In addition to needing increased attention to the provision of logic and linkages between new and previous LMX theory, it seems clear to us that more theoretical work is needed on LMX. The major theoretical papers number only a few, and with few exceptions, have been written by Graen and associates. We believe that broader-based, more frequent, and more systematic synthesis and integration of the LMX literature is needed, along with more basic theorization and model devel- opment. Certainly, future theoretical explications of LMX should clearly state the level(s) of analysis at which the phenomena are expected to hold.
While some theorists may choose to go back to VDL’s propositions regarding differentiation among subordinates (a within-unit phenomenon), or to adopt Dan- sereau’s (1995) suggestion of independent dyads, it may also be fruitful to explore alterative levels of analysis possibilities (e..g, Wiley, 1988). If some of this were to be performed by a cross section of the field, perhaps an increased fertilization of new ideas would occur. In any event, regardless of authorship, it seems critical to us that more attention be devoted to theory development. And, at the same time, it seems important that scholars who use the LMX approach in the future be more careful to not modify or extrapolate extant theory in their writings without providing a well-developed and sound theoretical basis for doing so.
Measurement
As evidenced by our review of LMX measures, and ~fortunately following a good portion of management research practice (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schries- heim et al., 1993), LMX scales seem to have been developed on an ad-hoc, evolution- ary basis, without the presentation of any clear logic or theory justifying the changes which were made. Also, items have been added to and subtracted from LMX measures without adequately discussing or presenting evidence regarding the ef- fect(s) of such changes on scale validity.
Perhaps even more troublesome, none of the scales used to measure LMX appear to be “based on either systematic psychometric study or explicit construct validation” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986, p. 623; see also Bhal & Ansari, 1996, and Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), althou~ validity assessments should be conducted on all measures on an on-going basis (Guion & Schriesheim, 1997; Nunnally & Bern- stein, 1994). Schriesheim et al. (1992b) have suggested that extant LMX measures have not been content valid because, “‘LMX scales have typically not been developed using an a priori theoretical definition of its content subdomains” (Schriesheim et al., 1992b, p. 984).
This clearly violates one of the more important principles of scale development for, as noted by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 102), “one should ensure content
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 101
validity (adequacy of sampling the material on which people are tested) in terms of a well-formulated plan and procedure of test construction before the actual test is developed rather than evaluate this after construction.” Additionally, it should be emphasized that content validity is not a trivial psychometric property, since a measure that is not content valid cannot. be construct valid (Schriesheim et al., 1993) and because Cook, Campbell, and Perrachio (1990, p. 505) suggest that one of the more serious threats to construct validity is “the inadequate preoperational explication of constructs.”
Our review thus suggests that the LMX construct may not be what was actually measured by at least some of the LMX scales which have been employed to date. Because a systematic program of development and validation has not been con- ducted, exactly what these scale are measuring is unknown and attempting to substantively synthesize the existing literature may therefore not make much sense.
As such, we believe that either a reconceptualization of the LMX construct is needed or further development and validation of a suitable LMX scale should be undertaken. With respect to this second course of action, it is probably worthwhile to note that current LMX theory lacks a clear description of the exchange process between a leader and subordinate (Dansereau et al., 1995a; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) and that it “doesn’t specify what pattern of downward exchange relationships with different subordinates is optimal for leadership effectiveness” (Yukl, 1994, p. 239). Furthermore, although LMX has been considered to involve an “exchange” process, neither the supervisor nor the subordinate are asked in any of the LMX scales (with the exception of the Negotiating Latitude scale used by Dansereau et al., 1975) what must be given (exchanged) for the reward or benefit to be received (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
However, some possible dimensions of the leader-member exchange have been suggested (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Thus, future work may be able to build upon this initial effort and a great opportunity appears to exist for psychometric work to advance future research on LMX. To avoid the mistakes of the past, such future psychometric work needs to carefully follow established practices for scale development and validation (cf., Hinkin, 1995; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Schries- heim et al., 1993). Additionally, a challenge exists for future researchers to better and more accurately describe their measures and how they relate to previous measures, and why one measure is employed rather than another.
Analysis
The level of analysis at which LMX theory should generally be tested appears to be either dyadic or within-group, and there appears to be basic agreement within the field regarding this position (see Footnote 2, however). The determination of whether LMX is a dyadic or within-group phenomenon and whether LMX is a better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS approach is an empirical question which requires the use of analytic techniques which test for various levels of analysis. A dyadic approach would involve looking at each supervisor-subordinate dyad as a “whole,” the analytic focus being the deviation of each dyad member’s score from this whole (or dyad average) score. Alternatively, a within-group analysis
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 I990
would consider the entire unit or work group as the “whole.” with deviations of individual members’ scores from this whole (or group average) as the focus.
Unfortunately, although methodologies have existed for some time to permit such testing (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984), apparently only 10 studies have employed an appropriate methodology. Because it is highly inappropriate to draw conclusions about the level of analysis at which a particular effect operates without first testing for such an effect, it therefore appears that support for LMX theory as a dyadic or within-group protrayal of leadership processes is substantially less than it should be. As we noted earlier, 10 studies, even if all were supportive of LMX level-of- analysis predictions, cannot be considered an adequate weight of scientific evidence on as complex a phenomenon as leader-member exchange.
The recommendation which seems most reasonable to rectify this situation seems obvious to us: (1) all future research on LMX should first specify the level(s) of analysis at which effects are expected to occur, and (2) suitable analytic methods should be employed to test for such levels and effects. We have briefly highlighted within- and between-entities analysis (WABA) as one particularly suitable approach but we should note that others exist as well. Thus, it does not matter whether one is or is not favorably disposed toward WABA as a data-analytic system. What does matter is that future research on leader-member relations exercise caution in framing and then testing hypothesized relationships. Without direct and explicit treatment of the level of analysis issue future research is not any more likely to be pertinent to our understanding of leader-member exchange than is much of the extant literature to date.
CONCLUSION
Although perhaps seeming obvious at first glance, this review clearly indicates the need for improved theorization about LMX and its basic process, for improved measurement practices, and for enhanced and more appropriate data-analytic tech- niques. It is true that many scholars believe that the LMX approach has substantially contributed to deepening our understanding of fundamental leadership phenomena. However, greater advances in the future appear possible if the basic theoretical, psychometric, and statistical recommendations presented in this review are em- braced and enacted by LMX researchers.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Terri A. Scandura and Francis J. Yamma- rino for their constructive feedback and comments on earlier versions of this manu- script.
NOTES
1. Parenthetically, several versions of the LBDQ exist, but none have 40 scored items. The Halpin (1957) and the Halpin and Winer (1957) versions (which are slightly different) present 40 items but score only 30. This, plus the fact that Graen and associates incorrectly cite Stogdill and Coons (1957) Fleishman (1957) and Pleishman, Harris, and Burn (1955) as the source of the LBDQ, makes it impossible to be sure exactly what leadership
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 103
measures they employed in these studies or how they were used (cf., Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977b).
2. As mentioned earlier, Craen and colleagues (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen & Wakabayashi, 1994) have recently placed theoretical emphasis on the relationship or linkage between the superior and subordinate and excluded the leader and the follower (as individuals) from the LMX model (Dansereau et al., 1995a). As Dansereau et al. (1995a) have noted, this new emphasis results in ambiguities regarding the appropriate level of analysis for this phenomenon. It seems clear to us, however, and to Dansereau and colleagues (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Nachman, Dansereau, & Naughton, 1983; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992) that in most instances tests of the LMX model need to examine whether results hold at the dyadic, within-group, or other levels of analysis.
REFERENCES
Achinstein, P. (1968). Concepts of science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1994). Value differences as a barrier in leader-member
exchange: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14,496515.
Barge, J. K., & Schlueter, D. W. (1991). Leadership as organizing: A critique of leadership instruments. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 541-570.
Basu, R. (1991). An empirical examination of LMX and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer- sity Microfilms International, 9201299.
Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinate performance, leader-subordinate compatibility, and exchange quality in leader-member dyads: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 77-92.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.
Bauer, T., & Green, S. (1994). LMX: Relationships withperformance, expectations, experience, and leader delegation at two points in time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Baugh, G. (1992). Interpersonal influence in a project organization: A role set analysis. UMZ Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9233218.
Baugh, G., Graen, G. B., & Page, D. (1993). Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.
Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (1996). Measuring quality of interaction between leaders and members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 945-972.
Blau, G. (1988). An investigation of the apprenticeship organizational socialization strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 176-195.
Borchgrevink, C. P., & Boster, F. J: (1994). Leader-member exchange: A test of the measure- ment model. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 75-100.
Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organiza- tional determinants. Administration & Society, 23, 471-494.
104 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
Cashman, J. F. (1976). The nature of vertical dvad linkages within managerial units. UMJ Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. 7616101.
Cashman. J.. Dansereau. F.. Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructurc and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 278-296.
Cashman, J. F., & Graen, G. (1977). The nature of leadership in the vertical dyad: The team building process. Cited in Graen et al. (1977, p. 504) as forthcoming in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (but not published in that journal nor in any we could find).
Chassie, M. B. (1984). Vertical dyadic linkage formation: Predictors and processes determin- ing quality superior-subordinate relationships. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8506411.
Cook. J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. London: Academic Press.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T.. & Perrachio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol- ogy: Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 491-576). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Copi. I. M. (1954). Symbolic logic. New York, NY: Macmillan. Cummings, L. L. (1975). Assessing the Graen/Cashman model and comparing it with other
approaches. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 181-185). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479-490.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., Markham, S. E., & Dumas, M. (1982). Multiplexed supervision and leadership: An application of within and between analysis. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 81-103). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau, F.. Jr., Cashman. J., & Graen, G. B. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, IO, 184-220.
Dansereau. F.. Jr., Graen. G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995a). Leadership: The multiple level approaches. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97-109.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S., Naughton, T., Kim, I., Al-Kelabi, S., Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995b). Individualized leadership: A new multiple level approach. Leadership Quarterl.y, 6, 413-450.
Day, D. D., & Crain, E. C. (1992). The role of affect and ability in initial exchange quality perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 17. 38&397.
Deluga, R. J. (1992). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 315- 326.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behaviour, satisfaction, and perceived superior effectiveness. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 64, 239-252.
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 105
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19,67-86.
Dienesch, R. M. (1986). A three dimensional model of leader-member exchange: An empirical test. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Chicago, IL.
Dienesch, R. M. (1987). An empirical investigation of the relationship between quality of leader-member exchange and subordinate performance and satisfaction. UMI Disserta- tion Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8800026.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11. 618-634.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16, 619-632.
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 395413.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993). How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14. 239-249.
Duarte, N. T.. Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.
Duchon. D., Green, S., & Taber, T. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of attitudes, measures. and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71. 56-60.
Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader- member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59-76.
Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, P., & Duchon, D. (1992). Perceptions of an innovative climate: Examining the role of divisional affiliation, work group interaction, and leader/subordi- nate exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39, 227-235.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40,988-1010.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56. 215-239.
Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Saar, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgments about the relationship. Communication Yearbook, IO, 395-415.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.
Fleishman, E. A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 103-119). Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. (1955). Leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.
Fukami. C. V., & Larson, E. W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 367-371.
Gast, I. F. (1987). Leader cognitive complexity and its effects on the quality of exchange relationships with subordinates. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8708350.
Gerras, S. J. (1992). The effect of cognitive busyness and nonverbal behaviors on trait inferences and leader-member exchange judgments. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9236826.
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. ? 19Y1
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82. X27-844.
Gessner. M. (1992). An interpersonal attraction approach to leader-member exchange: Pre- dicting the predictor. ~Mr~~sertat~on Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms International, 9234564.
Graen. G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations, In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago. IL: Rand-McNally.
Graen, G. B. (1985). Leader-member exchange scale. Unpublished paper, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organiza- tions: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-16.5). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G., Cashman, J. F., Ginsburgh, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal investiga- tion of the managerial underst~cture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491-SO4.
Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Haga, W. J., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). The invisible organization. Boston, MA: Shenkman Publishing Co.
Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972a). Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.
Graen, G.. Dansereau, F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972b). An empirical test of the man-in-the- middle hypothesis among executives in a hierarchical organization employing a unit- set analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 262-285.
Graen, G., Dansereau. F., Jr., Minami, T.. & Cashman, .I. (1973a). Leadership behaviors as cues to performance evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 16.611-623.
Graen, G., & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation. Organ~zat~onaZ Behavior and Human Performance, 19, l-17.
Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982a). The role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,868-872.
Graen, G., Novak. M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982b). The effects of leader-member ex- change and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B., &Johnson, T. W. (1973b). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 39.5420.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1985). Leader-member exchange scale-17 Unpublished paper, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Graen, G., & Scandura. T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied psychology, 63.206-212.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making. Jour- nal of Management Systems, 3,25-39.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Develop- ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 2.5 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership ~~~erfy, 6, 219-247.
Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi. M. (1992). Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging Ameri- can and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, &
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 107
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4 (2nd ed., pp. 41546). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Graen, G., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generaliz- ability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong infer- ence investigation. Leadership Quarterly, I, l-23.
Green. S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.
Green, S. G., Blank, W., & Liden, R. C. (1983). Market and organizational influences on bank employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68. 298-306.
Guion, R. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1997). Validity. In L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer. & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource manage- ment (pp. 380-381). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Haga, W. J., Graen, G., & Dansereau, F., Jr. (1974). Professionalism and role making in a service organization: A longitudinal investigation. American Sociological Review, 39, 122-133.
Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measure- ment (pp. 39-51). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32,466476.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967-988.
House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M.. &Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organiza- tional Behavior, 17, 71-114.
James, L. R., Gent, M. J., Hater, J. J., & Coray, K. E. (1979). Correlates of psychological influence: An illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 32, 563-588.
James, L. R.. Hater, J. J., & Jones, A. (1981). Perceptions of psychological influence: A cognitive information processing approach for explaining moderated relationships. Personnel Psychology, 34,453-477.
Jones, A. P., Glaman, J. M., & Johnson, D. S. (1993). Perceptions of a quality program and relationships with work perceptions and job attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72. 619-624.
Judge, T. A.. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.
Katerberg, R., & Horn, P. W. (1981). Effects of within-group and between-groups variation in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 218-233.
Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). LMX: Dyads embedded in groups or dyads independent of groups? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82.
108 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
Kim, I(. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinants of leader-subordinate exchange relation ships. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 77-89.
K’Obonyo, P. 0. (1988). A dyadic upward influence process: A laboratory investigation of the effect of a subordinate’s ingratiation (praise and performance) on the supervisor- subordinate exchange relationship. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Ilniver- sity Microfilms Inte~ational, 8910261.
Kinicki. A. J., & Vecchio. R. P. (i994). Influences on the quality of supe~isor-subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1.5, 75-82.
Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader- member exchange. and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, W-95.
KIein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory deveiopment, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 19.5229.
Korman, A. F. (1974). Contingency approaches to leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to ~eudership (pp. 189-195). Carbondale, IL: Southern llhnois University Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examina- tion of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546-553.
Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 39&.
Krone, K. J. (1991). Effects of leader-member exchange on subordinates’ upward influence attempts. Communication Research Report, 8, 9-18.
Lagace, R. R. (1987). An investigation into the impact of interpersonal trust on the quality of the relationship and outcome variables in the sales manager/salesperson dyad. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8729251.
Lagace, R. R. (1990). Leader-member exchange: Antecedents and consequences of the cadre and hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, IO, 11-19.
Leana, C. R. (1988). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 31. 754-774.
Lewin. K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Liden, R. C. (1985). Female perceptions of female and male managerial behavior. Sex tioles, 12, 421432.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of ~unageme~t, 24,43-72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward influence attempts. Group & Organization Management, 21, 461-480.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderat- ing effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
Markham, S. E.. Murry, W. D., & Scott, K. D. (1992). The dual impact of leadership on performance appraisal: A levels-of-analysis perspective. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 459-467). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 109
McClane, W. E. (1991a). Impli~tions of member role d~erentiation: Analysis of a key concept in the LMX model of leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 102-113.
McClane, W. E. (1991b). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leader- member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Research, 22, 283-300.
Murry, W. D. (1993). Leader-member exchange and work value congruence: A multiple levels approach. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9331469.
Nachman, S., Dansereau, F., & Naughton, T. J. (1983). Negotiating latitude: A within- and between-groups analysis of a key construct in the vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership. Psychological Reports, 53, 171-177.
Novak, M. A. (1982). The manager-employee questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Novak, M. A. (1984). A study of leader resources as determinants of leader-member exchange. I/MI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8509493.
Novak, M. A., 6t Graen, G. (1987). Perceived leader control as a moderator of personal leader resources contributing to leader-member exchange. Proceedings ofthe Academy of Management. 206-209.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business managers. Croup & Organization Studies, 25, 296-312.
Osigwey. C. A. B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy o~~unage- ment Review, 14, 579-594.
Peck, M. (1988). Head nurse fit with staff, administration, and situation: Impact on unit performance and staff satisfaction. UMI Dissertation Services. Arm Arbor, MI: Univer- sity Microfilms International, 8817885.
Phillips, A. S.. Br Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37,990-1001.
Phillips, R. L., Duran, C. A., & Howell, R. D. (1993). An examination of the multidimensional- ity hypothesis of leader-member exchange, using both factor analytic and structural modeling techniques. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 161-163.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987). Research methodology in organizational studies. Journal of management, 13,419-441.
Rogers, L. E., & Farace. R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measures and procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.
Rosse, R. G., & Kraut, A. I. (1983). Reconsidering the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 63-71.
Salzmann, J., & Grasha, A. F. (1991). Psychological size and psychological distance in man- ager-subordinate relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 629-646.
Scandura. T. A. (1988). Beyond the dyad: Interdependence in management networks. UMZ Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8822804.
Scandura, T. A., 81 Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal o-f Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Scandura, T. A.. & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader-member exchange approach. Leadership quarterly, 7, 243-263.
170 LEA~ERSHIPQUARTERLY Vol.10 No. I 19W
Scandura. T. A.. & Schriesheim. C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Acadrm~ of Mwlagement Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
Schiemann. W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication: A review of the literature and an empirical investigation. UMf dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 7724747.
Schriesheim. C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual-directed and group-directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Management Journnl, 22, 345-355.
Schriesheim, C. A.. Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). “Is it trustworthy?” A multiple levels-of-analysis reexalnination of an Ohio State leadership study with implications for future research. Leadership QuarterI-y, 6, 111-145.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr. S. (1977a). R.I.P. LPC: A reply to Fiedler. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 51-56). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois IJniversity Press.
Schriesheim. C. A.. & Kerr. S. (1977b). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leffdersh~p: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L.. & Scandura, T. A. (1998). A within- and between-groups analysis of leader-member exchange as a correlate of delegation and as a moderator of delegation relationships with performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 4I, 298-318.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992a). Development and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader-member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135-147.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and- pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.
Schriesheim, C. A.. Scandura, T. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Neider, L,. L. (1992b). Validation of a new leader-member exchange scale (LMX-6) using hierarchically-nested confirma- tory factor analysis. educational and Psychoiogjca~ Meusurement, 52, 983-992.
Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-394.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior, Research in Organiza- tionnl Behavior, 2, 3-43.
Scott. S. G. (1993). The influence of climate perceptions on innovative behavior: A model of individual innovation in the workplace. UMI ~~ssert~tio~ Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9319261.
Scott, S. Cr., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37,580-607.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Or~an~zat~~n~l Behnvior and Human Decision Froresses, 43, 118-135.
Seers, A.. & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 283-306.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange and employee reciprocity, Journnl of Applied Psych~~ogy~ 81.219-227.
Sias. P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22,5-38.
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 111
Sidhu, K. K. (1988). The role of a leader-member exchange and work experience in the early career development of professionals. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8822842.
Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruence of supervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables. Group and Organizational Studies, 10, 81-94.
Snyder, R. A., Williams, R. R., & Cashman, J. F. (1984). Age, tenure, and work perceptions as predictors of reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Psychology, 116, 11-21.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leader-member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 611-618.
Stepina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 93-104.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A, E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sutton, R. I.. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40. 371-384.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tanner, J. F., Jr., & Castleberry, S. B. (1990). Vertical exchange quality and performance:
Studying the role of the sales manager. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage- ment, 10, 17-27.
Tanner, J. F., Jr., Dunn, M. G., & Chonko, L. B. (1993). Vertical exchange and salesperson stress. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13, 27-36.
Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 195-207.
Thibodeaux, H. F., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and mentoring. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, II, 97-114.
Tierney. P. (1992). The contribution of leadership, supportive environment, and individual attributes to creative performance: A quantitative field study. UMI Dissertation Ser- vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9313826.
Turban, D. B., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influences of supervisor liking of a subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordi- nate. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 215-233.
Uhl-Bien, M. K. (1991). Teamwork of the future: An investigation into teamwork processes of professional work teams in knowledge-based organizations. UMI Dissertaton Ser- vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9205408.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1992). An empirical test of the leadership-making model in professional project teams. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 379-387). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P. S., Graen, G. B.. & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Company paternalism and the hidden-investment process: Identification of the “right type” for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 414-430.
112 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999
Vansudevan, D. P. (1993). Developing a model for predicting the career intentions of under- graduate engineering students. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms International, 9329876.
Vecchio, R. P. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200-208.
Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 478485.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 4444.51.
Vecchio, R. P. (1993). Self- and supervisor ratings: A dyadic approach. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1. 73-83.
Vecchio, R. P.. & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). Th e vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Vecchio, R. P.. Griffeth, R. W., & Horn, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical dyad linkage approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126. 617-625.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A 7-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603-614.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1989). Human resource development of Japanese manag- ers: Leadership and career investment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 1, 235-256.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G.. Graen, M. & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 217-227.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen. G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1990). The generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis in leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43, 1099- 1116.
Wakabayashi. M., Minami, T., Hashimoto, M., Sano, K., Graen, G., & Novak, M. (1981). Managerial career development: Japanese style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 391-420.
Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,487-499.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46,1431-1440.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Jqurnal, 40, 82-111.
Weitzel. J. R., & Graen. G. B. (1989). System development project effectiveness: Problem- solving competence as a moderator variable. Decision Sciences, 20, 507-531.
Wiley, N. (1988). The micro-macro problem in social theory. Sociological Theory, 6254-261. Wilhelm, C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993). Attributional conflict between managers
and subordinates: An investigation of leader-member exchange effects. Journal o,f Organizational Behavior, 14, 531-544.
Williams. L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 81, 88-101.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Dyadic leadership: MuItiple views and longitudinal
LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 113
considerations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Manage- ment, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1990). Salesperson performance and managerially controllable factors: An investigation of individual and work group effects. Jorwnal o,f
~~nage~e~~, 16.87-106.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A muftiple levels of analysis approach. i&man Relations, 45, 57.5400.
Yukl. G. A. (1994). ~eaders~~~ in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zalesny. M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater agreement. fugue R~~a~~o~s, 42, 81-96.