Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two to Tango? Implications of Alignment and Misalignment in Leader and Follower Perceptions of LMX

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We tested a model that focuses on leader and member perceptions of exchange in the LMX relationship. Drawing on social exchange theory, we examined whether alignment in leader and member assessment of the exchange relationship (i.e., similar perceptions of the quality of exchange in the relationship) impacts employee affective commitment, innovative performance, and turnover. We also investigated misalignment, specifically, whether leader or member assessment of LMX shapes employee outcomes. We tested our hypothesized model on a sample of 206 employees in 35 groups. We utilized hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and polynomial regression and employed response surface methodology to illustrate the relationships. Results demonstrate that employee outcomes are related to the degree to which leader and subordinate perceptions of LMX are aligned, after controlling for individual-level effects. In misalignment, the leaders’ positive perceptions rather than members’ perceptions of LMX explain employee innovative performance whereas LMX misalignment effects on affective commitment and turnover were not significant. Given the mixed results from previous research, our study suggests that LMX alignment enhances understanding of employee outcomes, relative to examining leader or subordinate LMX perceptions alone. Additionally, in misalignment, the leader’s perspective of the quality of the relationship is more relevant than the member’s perspective in influencing employee innovative performance. We add value by developing theory on the effects of LMX alignment and misalignment on employee outcomes, and we address methodological issues, such as treating LMX as a continuous variable, while testing for the alignment/misalignment effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

  • Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298–310.

  • Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 468–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2002). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. J. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance: The moderating effects of task characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. In A. Inkeles, J. Colemen, & N. Smelser (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 335–362). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader–member exchange. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology., 79, 433–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7. Scientific software international.

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., Choi, D. & Vandenberghe, C. (2017). Goal-focused leadership, leader-member exchange, and task performance: The moderating effects of goal orientations and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business Psychology, 1–16.

  • Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 739–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemmon, G., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. G., Chaudhry, A., & Marinova, S. (2016). Employee resources inventory (ERI): Development and validation of a measure of resources within dyadic relationships. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 1, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1090–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Wu, J., Cao, A. X., & Wayne, S. J. (2016). Leader-member exchange measurement. In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, B., Weigelt, O., Hergert, J., Gurt, J., & Gelléri, P. (2017). The use of snowball sampling for multi source organizational research: Some cause for concern. Personnel Psychology, 70(3), 635–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palansky, M. E. (2010). Leader-member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1686–1708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology., 78, 538–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of organizational commitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences. Journal of Management, 17, 716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Tekeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., & Graen, G. B. (2011). Longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 347–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). A two-study investigation of item wording effects on leader–follower convergence in descriptions of the leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 881–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don't see eye to eye: An examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1048–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Guillaume, Y., & Lee, A. (2013). Social cognition in leader–follower relationships: Applying insights from relationship science to understanding relationship-based approaches to leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S63–S81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecchio, R. P. (1998). Leader-member exchange, objective performance, employment duration, and supervisor ratings: Testing for moderation and mediation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 327–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. S., Sin, H. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagenczyk, T. J., Purvis, R. L., Shoss, M. K., Scott, K. L., & Cruz, K. S. (2015). Social influence and leader perceptions: Multiplex social network ties and similarity in leader–member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2009). Supervisor-subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader-member exchange (LMX) quality: Review and testable propositions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 920–932.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dominican University, 7900 West Division St, River Forest, IL, 60305, USA

    Anjali Chaudhry

  2. University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University Avenue, El Paso, TX, 79968-0539, USA

    Prajya R. Vidyarthi

  3. University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 S. Morgan Street, Chicago, IL, 60607-7123, USA

    Robert C. Liden & Sandy J. Wayne

Authors
  1. Anjali Chaudhry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prajya R. Vidyarthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert C. Liden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandy J. Wayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjali Chaudhry.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

 

Employee survey items

Dimension

1

I am the kind of person my Manager would like to have as a friend.

Affect

2

My Manager likes me very much as a person.

Affect

3

My Manager believes I’m a lot of fun to work with.

Affect

4

My Manager does not mind working his/her hardest to support me.

Contribution

5

My Manager is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my work goals.

Contribution

6

My Manager does work for me that goes beyond what is normally required.

Contribution

7

My Manager would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others.

Loyalty

8

My Manager defends (would defend) my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.

Loyalty

9

My Manager would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.

Loyalty

10

My Manager respects my knowledge of and competence on the job.

Professional respect

11

My Manager admires my professional skills.

Professional respect

12

My Manager is impressed with my knowledge of my job.

Professional respect

 

Manager survey items

 

1

I am the kind of person this employee would like to have as a friend.

Affect

2

This employee likes me very much as a person.

Affect

3

This employee believes I’m a lot of fun to work with.

Affect

4

This employee does not mind working his/her hardest for me.

Contribution

5

This employee is willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my work goals.

Contribution

6

This employee does work for me that goes beyond what is specified in his/her job description.

Contribution

7

This employee would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others.

Loyalty

8

This employee defends (would defend) my work actions to others, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.

Loyalty

9

This employee would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.

Loyalty

10

This employee respects my knowledge of and competence on the job.

Professional respect

11

This employee admires my professional skills.

Professional respect

12

This employee is impressed with my knowledge of my job.

Professional respect

Appendix 2

LMX dimensions

Affective commitment

Innovative performance

Actual turnover

LMX alignment at dimension level

  Affect

Yes

Yes

Yes (marginal)

  Contribution

Yes

Yes

Yes

  Loyalty

Yes

Yes

Yes

  Professional respect

Yes

Yes

Yes

LMX misalignment at dimension level

  Affect

No

Yes

No

  Contribution

Yes (marginal)

Yes

No

  Loyalty

Yes

Yes

Yes (marginal; in opposite direction)

  Professional respect

Yes (marginal)

Yes

No

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaudhry, A., Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R.C. et al. Two to Tango? Implications of Alignment and Misalignment in Leader and Follower Perceptions of LMX. J Bus Psychol 36, 383–399 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09690-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09690-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation