Abstract - UMSL College of Business Administrationbusiness.umsl.edu/files/pdfs/International LMX-Pellegrini-2015.pdf · CA 351 Relational Leadership through the Lens of International

C H A P T E R

351

Relational Leadership through the Lens of International LMX Research

Ekin K. Pellegrini

Abstract

Over the past decade, a substantial body of research on leader–member exchange (LMX) has emerged from the international context. International LMX is a developing research area with some intriguing findings; however, this emerging literature is still in its infancy and much work remains to be done for a strong theoretical foundation with sound practical implications. This article provides a comprehensive assessment of international LMX research. It then highlights theoretical and methodological gaps and suggests promising directions for future international LMX research.

Key Words: leader–member exchange, LMX, leadership, international, cross-cultural

IntroductionMultinational business organizations are increas-

ingly experiencing dynamic cross-cultural work arrangements due to technological advances such as teleconference, live chat, online hangouts, video conferencing, and an increasing reliance on email in lieu of face-to-face communication. In multina-tional companies, business is commonly conducted in multicultural work groups specifically via virtual work and expatriation. Accordingly, the twenty-first century has been referred to as “the century of inter-national management research” (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007, p. 427).

Recent changes in organizational structures toward an increasingly multicultural work envi-ronment are accompanied by an accelerated inter-est in management research across cultures. This interest is evidenced by major reviews within the past few years (e.g., Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012; Tsui et al., 2007). There is growing excitement among management scholars on cross-cultural research and it is clear from the review articles that sufficient research has accumulated to merit comprehensive reviews.

However, previous reviews of international research focused broadly on international management and organizational behavior and did not aim to pro-vide an in-depth study of specific areas, such as leader–member exchange (LMX), where a substan-tial amount of international research has accumu-lated specifically over the past decade. To date, the meta-analysis of Rockstuhl et al. (2012) is the only review of international LMX research; however, they focused specifically on six outcome variables [i.e., task performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), justice perceptions, job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions] and two antecedents (transformational leadership and leader trust).

Despite flourishing research in international LMX, the field is in need of a review of diverse findings. Thus, the purpose of this article is to pro-vide a thorough examination of recent advances in international LMX research and identify theoreti-cal and methodological gaps in the current state of the literature. LMX theory will advance only when diverse perspectives from the international context are integrated to provide a more complete theoreti-cal framework.

19

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 15 2015, NEWGEN

oxfordhb-9780199326174-part-5.indd 351 5/15/2015 2:52:20 PM

352 Relational Leadership through LMX Research

Theoretical BackgroundAccording to LMX theory, leaders develop

unique relationships with each follower (Scandura & Graen, 1984; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The qual-ity of these LMX relationships falls on a continuum ranging from low-quality relations characterized by economic exchange to high-quality relations char-acterized by social exchange. LMX is grounded in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which posits that unlike economic exchanges, social exchange relations are more flexible and complex and cannot be reduced to a single calculative exchange scale. Social exchange relations involve unspecified obli-gations in return for received favors and they rarely involve explicit bargaining. In a high-quality rela-tionship, followers receive support, encouragement, visibility, and developmental assignments from their leaders and they reciprocate the favor in more generalized terms (e.g., work harder) as opposed to immediate reciprocity in economic exchange (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). As LMX matures from low-quality relations that are charac-terized by transactional exchanges specified by the employment contract to high-quality exchanges beyond work requirements, members stop keep-ing count of favors since the relationship evolves into one characterized by mutual trust, obligation, respect, and loyalty. The quality of a member’s exchange relation with the leader has been shown to be positively related to performance, OCB, orga-nizational commitment, job satisfaction, and justice perceptions and negatively related to turnover, per-ceptions of politics, role ambiguity, and role con-flict (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012).

DefinitionThis review of over three decades of international

research suggests a general consensus in the field with respect to the definition of LMX. According to Graen and Scandura (1987), effective leader-ship occurs when leaders and followers maintain a high-quality LMX relationship characterized by mutual trust, respect, and obligation. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) also endorse this definition. Dienesch and Liden (1986) conceptualized LMX as a multidimensional construct composed of affect, contribution, and loyalty. Later, Liden, and Maslyn (1998) conducted interviews to serve as guidelines for item generation and based on these interviews, they proposed a five-dimensional model of LMX composed of three dimensions originally proposed

by Dienesch and Liden (1986) and two new dimen-sions: trust and professional respect. They defined trust as “the perception of the degree of genuine concern for the best interest of the other member of the dyad as reflected in supportive behavior and honesty” (p. 49). However, trust (a central tenet of social exchange theory) was later dropped and loyalty dimension was revised to include notions of trust. Empirical analyses demonstrated support for a four-dimensional model that included affect, contribution, loyalty, and professional respect as currencies of exchange. Liden and Maslyn (1998) suggest LMX relations may be based primarily on one, two, three, or all four dimensions. For exam-ple, affect may develop quickly, perhaps during the employment interview; however, loyalty may take considerable time to grow.

A multidimensional conceptualization of LMX is especially significant in cross-cultural research as different LMX domains may lead to different out-comes (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Furthermore, the relative importance of exchange currencies may vary considerably across cultures. However, current defi-nitions of LMX used in international research are limited by a strictly etic (cultural-universals) per-spective due to the conceptualization of LMX mean-ing based on interviews solely with U.S. samples.

Based on inconsistent LMX findings from the international context, Anand, Hu, Liden, and Vidyarthi (2011) suggested that LMX dynamics may operate differently in non-Western contexts. Inconsistent findings of these studies include, but not limited to, a nonsignificant relation between LMX and OCB in China (Loi & Ngo, 2009), a nonsignificant association between LMX and turnover intentions in India (Mehta, 2009), and a significantly weaker association between transfor-mational leadership and LMX in Saudi Arabia and Jordan as compared to Australia (Pillai, Scandura, & Williams, 1999). Given that these associations are well-established in the Western context, controver-sial findings from international research prompted Rockstuhl et al. (2012) to conduct a meta-analysis of international LMX research.

In their meta-analysis from the international context, Rockstuhl et al. (2012) observed a signifi-cantly weaker association between LMX and out-come variables as compared to established findings from the U.S. context. For example, the relation-ships among LMX and OCB, justice perceptions, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust were all significantly stronger in Western cul-ture (i.e., horizontal/individualistic; HI) contexts



Pellegrini 353

(e.g., United States, England, Canada, Australia) compared to vertical/collectivistic (VC) cultures (e.g., China, India, Turkey, Colombia, Malaysia, Singapore). They suggest that the underlying reason for weaker associations between LMX and outcome variables in the international context is that employ-ees in VC cultures are influenced by role-based obli-gations; due to their stronger respect for authority, attitudes and behaviors of members in VC cultures are therefore less likely to be influenced solely by leader treatment. They further suggest that the weaker associations in non-Western contexts may be due to cross-cultural differences in the underly-ing mechanisms of LMX and they call for research that examines LMX content in the international context. Furthermore, they state that “change in construct meaning across cultures is an alternative explanation” for attenuated relationships (p. 1104). In this review, we also argue for a critical need to incorporate emic (cultural-specific) conceptualiza-tions of LMX in international research.

MeasurementThis current review of international LMX

research suggests three commonly used measure-ment instruments to assess LMX perceptions (see the Appendix). Of the 93 studies reviewed, 48 (52%) used the 7-item, unidimensional LMX-7 scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Another commonly used scale is the 12-item multidimensional LMX-MDM scale (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), which assesses four LMX dimen-sions: affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect. Although LMX-MDM is a multidimen-sional measure (MDM), notwithstanding a few exceptions (e.g., Ansari, Hung, & Aafaqi; 2007; Lee, 2005; Wang, Law, & Chen, 2008), international research using LMX-MDM mostly examined LMX as a higher-order construct, rather than studying the dimensions’ differential relations with outcomes.

A common reliance on these validated scales produces the benefit of consistency and compara-bility of empirical LMX studies within and across cultures. However, LMX is a complex and multi-dimensional exchange relationship and we may be trading rigor for relevance (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011; Staw, 1995) by not seeking to understand cultural variations in LMX meaning via in-depth interviews and focus groups for further theoretical refinement. A more complete conceptual understanding of LMX in non-Western contexts is essential for construct validity and will ultimately aid in advancing both theory and practice.

A call for international studies that examine indigenous LMX dimensions is long overdue. A common and troubling reliance on measurement scales based on Western conceptualizations may limit our ability to understand the varied cultural nuances in LMX relationships. My review of the international literature suggests that the four LMX-MDM dimensions are theoretically and empirically meaningful across cultures. However, there may be additional, indigenous facets of LMX relationships that research has yet to identify.

For example, in Confucian cultures, guanxi describes dyadic relationship quality and it is the key driver of work relations. Confucian relational-ism characterizes personal relations as the basic unit of social systems and Chinese society is so relation-ship oriented that guanxi is pursued for its own sake (Chen, Chen, & Huang, 2013; Hwang, 2009). Guanxi relationships are holistic in that they involve care and concern for the social, psychological, and economic (i.e., on the job and off the job domains) welfare of the other member (Chen, Friedman, Yu, Fang, & Lu, 2009). Recently, Chen, Yu, and Son (2014) suggested that the focus of LMX research has long been on Western LMX theory and that research needs to move beyond Western conceptualizations and identify indigenous LMX components that involve an off-the-job personal relationship. Almost two decades ago, House and Aditya (1997) sug-gested that LMX theory reflects U.S. cultural prefer-ences for a separation between work and personal relations; however, research has still yet to extend LMX theory beyond the Western business context.

To delineate the distinction of guanxi from LMX, Law, Wong, Wang, and Wang (2000) defined leader–member guanxi (LMG) in non-work-related social exchanges, such as gift giving and dinner invitations. The major differ-ence between Chinese LMG and Western LMX is that whereas LMX is limited to work-related exchanges, LMG includes non-work-related social exchange (Chen et al., 2013). Given that Chinese leader–member relationships involve both work and off-the-job domains, an overarching frame-work depicting leader–member exchange qual-ity in the Chinese context should include both LMX and LMG to thoroughly assess relation-ship quality. In fact, due to the limited ability of LMX to capture indigenous cultural nuances in leader–member exchange relations (Hui & Graen, 1997), Chen et al. (2009) developed a scale to assess supervisor–subordinate guanxi quality encompassing both work and non-work-related




aspects of the dyadic relationship, which is con-ceptually similar to LMX in the Western context (Chen et al., 2013). Recently, in the Chinese context, Chen et al. (2013) found that LMX dif-ferentiation was not significantly related to job satisfaction or turnover intent; however, LMG differentiation was negatively related to job sat-isfaction and positively related to turnover intent. Thus, guanxi may be a key aspect of LMX in the Chinese context. In assessing LMX quality, it is time that researchers integrate the broader social context and incorporate culturally significant exchange norms into measurement instruments. LMX will represent an overarching framework for the study of social exchange relationships at work only when indigenous perspectives are also inte-grated into theoretical development.

Similar to the significance of guanxi in Chinese LMX relationships, dominant Confucian values––hierarchy and relationalism––suggest another signif-icant indigenous construct in high-quality exchange relations. Paternalistic leadership has been at the forefront of indigenous dyadic leadership theo-ries and has received growing interest within the past decade (Aycan, Schyns, Sun, Felfe, & Saher, 2013; Chen, Eberly, Chiang, Farh, & Cheng, 2014; Cheng et al., 2014; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2010). Paternalism combines discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence (Farh & Cheng, 2000). Benevolence refers to a holistic concern for sub-ordinate’s well-being and people in authority con-sider it an obligation to take a personal interest in the follower’s off-the-job lives to promote welfare (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). Subordinates show loyalty and deference out of respect and appre-ciation for the leader’s care and protection (Aycan, 2006). Paternalistic leaders are also authoritative (as opposed to authoritarian) and they exercise control to promote the subordinate’s welfare (Aycan, 2006). Subordinates know the rules are for their advance-ment and respect and willingly comply with the leader’s decisions. Research suggests that in pater-nalistic business contexts, such as Turkey, India, China, and Mexico (Aycan et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008), paternalism may be a key compo-nent in defining high-quality LMX relations. Aycan et al. (2013) recently suggested that paternalism is commonly practiced in VC cultures of Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa and that it represents leadership dynamics in the majority of the world. Incorporating emic management practices into LMX measurement instruments will broaden the scope and representativeness of LMX theory.

Regarding the established LMX dimensions (i.e., affect, contribution, loyalty, respect), what is interpreted as positive behavior may not have a similar connotation in another culture. For exam-ple, one item from Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) affect scale is “My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.” The definition of ‘friend’ may vary considerably across cultures. In a cross-cultural study in Hong Kong, Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson, and Bond (1989) found that when an employee encounters difficulties, the discussion by the supervisor of the employee’s per-sonal problems with other team members in the absence of the employee is considered “considerate behavior,” whereas respondents from the United States regard talking “behind the back” of this per-son as inconsiderate. Thus, future research needs to delve deeper into culturally accepted as well as culturally questionable behaviors for LMX dimen-sions to provide a solid and practical theory for business leaders in cross-cultural work contexts.

Similarly, loyalty may have different conno-tations across cultures. According to Liden and Maslyn (1998), loyalty refers to “the expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of the other member of the LMX dyad” (p. 50). However, in paternalistic societies loyalty goes beyond simple expressions of public sup-port. Unquestioning obedience and deference to the leader are essential elements of loyalty in leader–member relations in paternalistic work envi-ronments (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). Therefore, the definition of “loyalty” may have additional emic aspects that have yet to be identified in LMX research.

Furthermore, Liden and Maslyn (1998) ini-tially conceptualized trust as a separate, fifth dimension of LMX. However, their findings sug-gested that trust and loyalty were not easily distin-guishable and they decided to include trust in the loyalty dimension and to drop the separate trust dimension. However, trust is a central tenet of social exchange theory, and given the significance and salience of trust in relationship-oriented, VC business contexts, trust as originally conceptual-ized by Liden and Maslyn (1998) may appear as an additional dimension in non-Western business contexts.

Antecedents of LMX in the International Context

The current review suggests a disproportion-ate attention devoted to outcomes rather than



Pellegrini 355

antecedents; however, there is still ample research on antecedents of LMX from an international con-text. Of the 93 studies reviewed, 32 (34%) studied one or more antecedents of LMX. To provide a ref-erence for the reader, Table 19.1 presents a list of the studies identified as examining LMX in an interna-tional context. This list was constructed by perform-ing a search of the key terms LMX, leader–member exchange, international, and cross-cultural in the PsychINFO database. I also added studies from the references lists of the identified articles.

Table 19.1 lists the studies reviewed, including antecedent and outcome variables, LMX measure-ment instruments used, source of ratings (e.g., member, leader, personnel records), as well as sam-ple information.

The majority of studies examining LMX ante-cedents in the international context employed cross-sectional/same source (45%) and cross-sectional/multisource (39%) methods fol-lowed by time-lag/multisource (6%) designs. Specifically, research that examines leader–member similarity (e.g., organizational tenure, value, per-sonality, gender, age, national origin similarity) as LMX antecedents (Ashkanasy & O’Connor, 1997; Bhal, Ansari, & Aafaqi, 2007; Loi & Ngo, 2009; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002; Pelled & Xin, 2000; Testa, 2009) predominantly adopted cross-sectional designs. These studies suggest subordinates in high-quality exchanges are more similar to their leaders on gender, national origin, values, and per-sonality. For example, in China, Loi and Ngo (2009) found that male subordinates with female supervi-sors reported the lowest LMX quality, whereas male subordinates with male supervisors reported the highest LMX. However, given the cross-sectional design in all these studies, we still do not know much about the longitudinal effects of similarity. For example, at early stages of LMX development, demographic similarities may be more salient pre-dictors of LMX quality. However, as LMX matures into a high-quality relationship, non-work-related predictors (e.g., demographics) may no longer be salient in determining LMX quality. Thus, these relations should be examined at more than one time point with a sufficient time lag between to allow LMX relationships to mature.

In addition, international research should incor-porate the broader social, historical, and political context into LMX theory building. For example, Waismel-Manor, Berger, and Dikstein (2010) stud-ied Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews in Israel and found LMX to be more strongly related to OCBs

in similar dyads. Gong, Farh, and Chattopadhyay (2012) found shared dialect identity (e.g., Mandarin, Hakka, Mingnan) to be a predictor of LMX in Taiwan. One similarity variable that may be a significant predictor of LMX quality in the Middle Eastern business context is political affilia-tion. Numerous Middle Eastern countries are cur-rently experiencing political turmoil and examining value similarity or congruence in political affiliation as a potential LMX antecedent is a relevant and timely endeavor. For example, in the Turkish busi-ness context, a leader affiliated with AKP (Justice Development Party; a right-wing party developed from the tradition of Islamism) and a member affiliated with CHP (Republican People’s Party; a center-left party endorsing social liberalism) may report significantly lower LMX compared to dyads congruent in political values.

Another untapped research avenue includes leader–member similarity on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) and implicit followership theories (IFTs) (Engle & Lord, 1997; Sy, 2010). In a lon-gitudinal study in the U.K., Epitropaki and Martin (2005) found that leader–member differences in prototypic ILTs (e.g., sensitivity) negatively influ-ence LMX, whereas differences in antiprototypic ILTs (e.g., tyranny) positively influence LMX qual-ity. Furthermore, in the U.S. context, Sy (2010) found leaders’ followership prototype (e.g., enthusi-asm) to be positively related to LMX, whereas lead-ers’ followership antiprototype (e.g., conformity) was negatively related to LMX. However, these definitions originated in a Western context and therefore ILTs and IFTs as LMX antecedents should be examined carefully in an international business context. This research stream is promising for inter-national LMX research since leaders and members may have culturally ingrained notions of the defini-tion of an ideal leader and follower and uncover-ing indigenous ILTs and IFTs may provide a more in-depth understanding of LMX antecedents. Given the limited number of LMX studies on ILTs and IFTs, the potential for theory development in inter-national LMX research is significant (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013).

Another promising avenue in studying LMX antecedents is that all the studies examining ante-cedents in extant research measured LMX from the subordinate’s perspective. To date, little progress has been made in incorporating the leader’s per-spective [i.e., supervisor leader–member exchange (SLMX)] in examining predictors of LMX qual-ity. A central tenet of LMX theory is that LMX



Tabl

e 19

.1.

Ant

eced

ents

and

Out

com

es o

f LM

X (N

on-U

.S. C

onte

xt)

Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Har

ris, L

i, &

K

irkm

an (2

014)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

(L)

Turn

over

inte

ntio

n (M

)

223

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

60

supe

rviso

rsC

hina

8 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Baue

r & G

reen

(199

6)

(M)

Che

n, Y

u, &

Son

(2

014)

Ove

rall

LMX

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Tu

rnov

er in

tent

ion

(M)

Co-

wor

ker h

elpi

ng

beha

vior

(M)

228

empl

oyee

s in

60 w

ork

grou

ps fr

om 1

2 co

mpa

nies

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Liu,

Lin

, & H

u (2

013)

Ove

rall

LMX

Une

thic

al b

ehav

ior (

M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

249

empl

oyee

s fro

m fo

ur

finan

ce c

ompa

nies

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Liu,

Cai

, Li,

Shi,

&

Fang

(201

3)O

vera

ll LM

XO

rgan

izatio

nal

iden

tifica

tion

(M)

Turn

over

inte

ntio

n (M

)

190

lead

er–m

embe

r dya

dsH

ong

Kon

gC

hina

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(L)

Baka

r & S

heer

(2

013)

Dya

dic

LMX

ag

reem

ent

Team

-mem

ber e

xcha

nge

(TM

X) (

M)

Coo

pera

tive

com

mun

icat

ion

(M)

Gro

up c

ohes

ion

(M)

375

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

48

man

ager

sM

alay

siaLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M) a

nd

SLM

X-M

DM

(L)

Volm

er, S

purk

, &

Nie

ssen

(201

2)O

vera

ll LM

XC

reat

ive

wor

k in

volv

emen

t (M

,Ti

me

2)

144

empl

oyee

sG

erm

any

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M,

Tim

e 1)

Zho

u, W

ang,

C

hen,

& S

hi

(201

2)

Ove

rall

LMX

LLX

(lea

der–

lead

er

exch

ange

) (L;

Ti

me

1)

Empo

wer

men

t (M

, Tim

e 1)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M, T

ime

2)Jo

b pe

rform

ance

(L, T

ime

2)

577

bank

em

ploy

ees n

este

d w

ithin

104

man

ager

sC

hina

8 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Scan

dura

& G

raen

(198

4)

by B

auer

& G

reen

(199

6)

(M; T

ime

1)

AQ

: Ple

ase

pro

vid

e fo

otn

ote

for

sup

ersc

rip

t 1



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Brun

etto

, Sh

ackl

ock,

Ba

rtra

m, L

egga

t, Fa

rr-W

hart

on,

Stan

ton,

& C

asim

ir (2

012)

Ove

rall

LMX

Psyc

holo

gica

l em

pow

erm

ent (

M)

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)

1283

nur

ses

Austr

alia

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Hu,

Ou,

Chi

ou, &

Li

n (2

012)

Ove

rall

LMX

Team

kno

wle

dge

shar

ing

(M)

Team

serv

ice

inno

vatio

n pe

rform

ance

(M)

466

empl

oyee

s fro

m 3

5 ho

tels

Taiw

anLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Joo

& R

eady

(2

012)

Ove

rall

LMX

Car

eer s

atisf

actio

n (M

)23

2 em

ploy

ees

Kor

eaLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Gaj

endr

an &

Josh

i (2

012)

Ove

rall

LMX

Mem

ber i

nflue

nce

on te

am

deci

sions

(M)

167

mem

bers

in 4

0 gl

obal

ly

distr

ibut

ed te

ams

Euro

pe, J

apan

, K

orea

, Aus

tral

ia,

Uni

ted

Stat

es

7 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Scan

dura

& G

raen

(198

4)

by Ja

nsse

n &

Van

Ype

ren

(200

4) (M

)

Gon

g, F

arh,

&

Cha

ttopa

dhya

y (2

012)

Ove

rall

LMX

Shar

ed d

iale

ct

iden

tity

(M, L

)17

9 su

bord

inat

es n

este

d w

ithin

76

supe

rviso

rsTa

iwan

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M, L

)

Zha

ng,

Wal

dman

, & W

ang

(201

2)

Ove

rall

LMX

Mem

ber’s

em

erge

nce

as a

n in

form

al le

ader

(pee

r tea

m

mem

bers

)

361

empl

oyee

s in

74 te

ams

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Gra

en &

U

hl-B

ien,

199

5) (M

)

Volm

er, N

iess

en,

Spur

k, L

inz,

&

Abel

e (2

011)

Ove

rall

LMX

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M;

Tim

e 1)

Job

Satis

fact

ion

(M, T

ime

2)27

9 em

ploy

ees f

rom

a la

rge

IT c

ompa

nyG

erm

any

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M;

Tim

e 1

and

Tim

e 2)

Yous

af, S

ande

rs,

Tork

a, &

Ard

ts (2

011)

Ove

rall

LMX

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith h

uman

re

sour

ces p

ract

ices

(M)

122

doct

oral

stud

ents

Net

herla

nds

15 it

ems a

dapt

ed fr

om

Lide

n an

d M

asly

n (1

998)

(M

)

Kar

im (2

011)

Ove

rall

LMX

Emot

iona

l in

telli

genc

e (M

)D

istrib

utiv

e ju

stice

(M)

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

(M)

106

empl

oyee

sPa

kista

nLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

) (con

tinue

d)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Venk

atar

aman

i, G

reen

, &

Schl

eich

er (2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Perc

eive

d le

ader

sta

tus (

M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Turn

over

inte

ntio

ns (M

)18

4 em

ploy

ees n

este

d w

ithin

42

man

ager

sIn

dia

8 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Scan

dura

& G

raen

(1

984)

by

Baue

r & G

reen

(1

996)

(M)

Pelle

grin

i, Sc

andu

ra, &

Ja

yara

man

(201

0)

Ove

rall

LMX

Pate

rnal

istic

lead

ersh

ip (M

)Aff

ectiv

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

207

empl

oyed

MBA

stud

ents

215

empl

oyed

MBA

stud

ents

Indi

aU

.S.

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Anan

d, V

idya

rthi

, Li

den,

& R

ouss

eau

(201

0)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

(L)

231

subo

rdin

ate–

supe

rviso

r dy

ads

Indi

aLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Kim

, Lee

, &

Car

lson

(201

0)O

vera

ll LM

XTu

rnov

er in

tent

(M)

232

nons

uper

viso

ry a

nd 8

8 su

perv

isory

em

ploy

ees

Sout

h K

orea

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura,

G

raen

, & N

ovak

, 19

86) (

M)

Liao

, Liu

, & L

oi

(201

0)O

vera

ll LM

XSe

lf-effi

cacy

(M)

Cre

ativ

ity (H

R d

epar

tmen

t)82

8 em

ploy

ees

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Gra

en &

U

hl-B

ien,

199

5) (M

)

Hua

ng, C

han,

La

m, &

Nan

(2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Burn

out (

M)

Wor

k pe

rform

ance

(sup

ervi

sor,

peer

s, cu

stom

ers)

493

lead

er–m

embe

r dya

dsC

hina

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Li, L

iang

, & C

rant

(2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Proa

ctiv

e pe

rson

ality

(M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

(L)

200

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

54

supe

rviso

rsC

hina

8 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Scan

dura

& G

raen

(1

984)

(M)

Brun

etto

, Fa

rr-W

hart

on, &

Sh

ackl

ock

(201

0)

Ove

rall

LMX

Mor

ale

(M)

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)

1064

nur

ses

Austr

alia

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Erdo

gan

& B

auer

(2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith c

o-w

orke

r re

latio

ns (M

)H

elpi

ng b

ehav

ior t

arge

ting

co-w

orke

rs (L

)

276

empl

oyee

s nes

ted

with

in

25 m

anag

ers

Turk

eyLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Eise

nber

ger,

Kar

agon

lar,

Stin

glha

mbe

r, N

eves

, Bec

ker,

Gon

zale

s-M

oral

es,

& S

teig

er-M

ulle

r (2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)In

-rol

e pe

rform

ance

(L)

Extr

a-ro

le p

erfo

rman

ce (L

)

346

subo

rdin

ate–

supe

rviso

r dya

ds25

1 em

ploy

ees m

atch

ed w

ith

79 su

perv

isors

Port

ugal

Uni

ted

Stat

esLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Joo

(201

0)O

vera

ll LM

XAff

ectiv

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

Turn

over

inte

ntio

n (M

)

516

empl

oyee

sSo

uth

Kor

eaLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Wai

smel

-Man

or,

Berg

er, &

Dik

stein

(2

010)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

s (L)

163

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Isra

el11

item

s fro

m

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Lo, R

amay

ah, M

in,

& S

onga

n (2

010)

Affec

tLo

yalty

Con

trib

utio

nRe

spec

t

Org

aniza

tiona

l com

mitm

ent

(M)

156

empl

oyee

s fro

m 1

1 co

mpa

nies

Mal

aysia

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Bote

ro &

Van

D

yne

(200

9)O

vera

ll LM

XEm

ploy

ee v

oice

(M)

109

empl

oyee

s13

8 em

ploy

ees

Uni

ted

Stat

esC

olom

bia

6 ite

ms (

Gra

en, N

ovak

, &

Som

mer

kam

p, 1

982)

(M)

Bhal

, Gul

ati,

&

Ansa

ri (2

009)

Affec

tPe

rcei

ved

cont

ribut

ion

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Lo

yalty

(org

aniza

tiona

l ci

tizen

ship

beh

avio

r) (M

)

306

softw

are

prof

essio

nals

Indi

a10

item

s (Bh

al &

Ans

ari,

1996

) (M

)

(con

tinue

d)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Loi,

Mao

, & N

go

(200

9)O

vera

ll LM

XO

rgan

izatio

nal s

ocia

l ex

chan

ge (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal e

cono

mic

ex

chan

ge (M

)Aff

ectiv

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

Inte

ntio

n to

leav

e (M

)

239

empl

oyee

sC

hina

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Loi &

Ngo

(200

9)O

vera

ll LM

XG

ende

r di

ssim

ilarit

y (M

, L)

Org

aniza

tiona

l te

nure

di

ssim

ilarit

y (M

, L)

Age

diss

imila

rity

(M, L

)Ed

ucat

ion

diss

imila

rity

(M, L

)N

atio

nal o

rigin

di

ssim

ilarit

y (M

, L)

239

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Testa

(200

9)O

vera

ll LM

XLe

ader

–mem

ber

natio

nal o

rigin

sim

ilarit

y (M

)

520

empl

oyee

s fro

m tw

o U

.S. c

ruise

line

s66

cou

ntrie

s (p

redo

min

antly

fro

m U

nite

d St

ates

, Eng

land

, Ita

ly, In

dia)

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Li &

Hun

g (2

009)

Ove

rall

LMX

Tran

sform

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip (M

)Ta

sk p

erfo

rman

ce (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal c

itize

nshi

p be

havi

or (M

)

1040

teac

hers

from

52

elem

enta

ry sc

hool

sTa

iwan

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Che

n, F

riedm

an,

Yu, F

ang,

& L

u (2

009)

Ove

rall

LMX

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Tu

rnov

er in

tent

ion

(M)

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

(M)

209

empl

oyee

s fro

m 1

2 co

mpa

nies

Chi

naLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Isha

k &

Ala

m

(200

9)O

vera

ll LM

XO

rgan

izatio

nal c

itize

nshi

p be

havi

ors (

L)Se

lf-es

teem

(M)

300

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

11

8 su

perv

isors

Mal

aysia

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

, L)

Hsiu

ng &

Tsa

i (2

009)

Ove

rall

LMX

Perfo

rman

ce (L

)Em

ploy

ee re

lativ

e jo

b br

eadt

h (M

, L)

Lead

er–m

embe

r con

grue

nce

on jo

b co

nten

t (M

, L)

184

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Taiw

anLM

X-7

(Gra

en &

U

hl-B

ien,

199

5) (M

)

Liao

, Hu,

&

Chu

ng (2

009)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)

303

empl

oyee

s fro

m 2

4 in

tern

atio

nal h

otel

sTa

iwan

6 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Fiel

der,

Che

mer

s, &

M

ahar

(197

7)

Yife

ng &

Tjo

svol

d (2

008)

Ove

rall

LMX

Coo

pera

tive

goal

s (M

)C

ompe

titiv

e go

als (

M)

Inde

pend

ent g

oals

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Pe

rform

ance

(M)

Lead

er e

ffect

iven

ess (

M)

Futu

re c

olla

bora

tion

(M)

Ope

n-m

inde

d di

scus

sion

(M)

Inno

vatio

n (M

)

199

empl

oyee

s(9

9 ha

d Am

eric

an m

anag

ers,

100

had

Japa

nese

man

ager

s)

Chi

na5

item

s ada

pted

from

G

raen

et a

l. (1

982)

(M)

Van

Dyn

e, K

amda

r, &

Joire

man

(200

8)O

vera

ll LM

XH

elpi

ng (s

uper

viso

r fo

cuse

d) (L

)Vo

ice

(org

aniza

tion

focu

sed)

(L

)

218

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

34

supe

rviso

rsIn

dia

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Hel

ping

(sup

ervi

sor

focu

sed)

(L)

Voic

e (s

uper

viso

r foc

used

) (L)

Hel

ping

(org

aniza

tion

focu

sed)

(L)

Voic

e (o

rgan

izatio

n fo

cuse

d)

(L)

234

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

36

supe

rviso

rsSi

ngap

ore

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Asga

ri, S

ilong

, Ah

mad

, & S

amah

(2

008)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

(L)

220

empl

oyee

sIr

anLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Oze

r (20

08)

Ove

rall

LMX

Job

perfo

rman

ce (L

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)24

3 su

perv

isor–

subo

rdin

ate

dyad

sC

hina

, Hon

g K

ong,

Tai

wan

, Si

ngap

ore,

Sout

h K

orea

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Wan

g, L

aw, &

C

hen

(200

8)Aff

ect

Con

trib

utio

nLo

yalty

Prof

essio

nal

resp

ect

Task

per

form

ance

(L)

Con

text

ual p

erfo

rman

ce (L

)16

8 em

ploy

ees m

atch

ed w

ith

87 m

anag

ers

Chi

na16

item

s ada

pted

from

Li

den

and

Mas

lyn

(199

8)

by W

ang

et a

l. (2

001)

(M)

Dul

ac,

Coy

le-S

hapi

ro,

Hen

ders

on, &

W

ayne

(200

8)

Ove

rall

LMX

Psyc

holo

gica

l con

trac

t bre

ach

(M, T

ime

2)Ps

ycho

logi

cal c

ontr

act

viol

atio

n (M

, Tim

e 2)

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

, Tim

e 2)

Inte

ntio

ns to

qui

t (M

, Tim

e 2)

152

empl

oyee

sBe

lgiu

mLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4)

(M, T

ime

1)

van

Dam

, Ore

g, &

Sc

hyns

(200

8)O

vera

ll LM

XIn

form

atio

n (M

)Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

(M)

Trus

t in

man

agem

ent (

M)

235

empl

oyee

sN

ethe

rland

sLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Che

n, T

sui,

&

Zho

ng (2

008)

Psyc

holo

gica

l co

ntra

ct b

reac

h by

th

e su

bord

inat

e (L

)

273

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Lam

, Hua

ng, &

Sn

ape

(200

7)O

vera

ll LM

XFe

edba

ck-s

eeki

ng

beha

vior

(L)

209

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

70

supe

rviso

rsC

hina

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Neg

ativ

e fe

edba

ck-s

eeki

ng

beha

vior

(L)

Perfo

rman

ce (p

erso

nnel

re

cord

s)24

0 em

ploy

ees m

atch

ed w

ith

84 su

perv

isors

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Gra

en &

U

hl-B

ien,

199

5) (M

)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Che

n, L

am, &

Z

hong

(200

7)O

vera

ll LM

XN

egat

ive

feed

back

-see

king

be

havi

or (L

)Su

bjec

tive

in-r

ole

perfo

rman

ce (L

)O

bjec

tive

in-r

ole

perfo

rman

ce

(per

sonn

el re

cord

s)

238

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Che

n &

Tjo

svol

d (2

007)

Ove

rall

LMX

Con

struc

tive

cont

rove

rsy

(M)

163

empl

oyee

s (68

re

port

ed to

U.S

. man

ager

s, 95

repo

rted

to C

hine

se

man

ager

s)

Chi

na5

item

s ada

pted

from

G

raen

et a

l. (1

982)

(M)

Bhal

, Ans

ari,

&

Aafa

qi (2

007)

Affec

tPe

rcei

ved

cont

ribut

ion

Gen

der m

atch

(M)

Supe

rviso

r su

ppor

t (M

)LM

X te

nure

(M)

Perc

eive

d or

gani

zatio

nal

supp

ort (

M)

201

empl

oyee

sM

alay

sia10

item

s (Bh

al &

Ans

ari,

1996

) (M

)

Bhal

& G

ulat

i (2

007)

Affec

tPe

rcei

ved

cont

ribut

ion

Voic

e (M

)30

6 em

ploy

ees

Indi

a10

item

s (Bh

al &

Ans

ari,

1996

) (M

)

Bhal

& A

nsar

i (2

007)

Affec

tPe

rcei

ved

cont

ribut

ion

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)D

istrib

utiv

e ju

stice

(M)

Voic

e (M

)

295

empl

oyee

sIn

dia

10 it

ems (

Bhal

& A

nsar

i, 19

96) (

M)

Schy

ns, T

orka

, &

Gös

sling

(200

7)O

vera

ll LM

XTu

rnov

er in

tent

ion

(M)

Prep

ared

ness

for c

hang

e (M

)32

6 em

ploy

ees

85 e

mpl

oyee

sG

erm

any

Net

herla

nds

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

10 it

ems a

dapt

ed fr

om

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Ansa

ri, H

ung,

&

Aafa

qi (2

007)

Affec

tC

ontr

ibut

ion

Loya

ltyPr

ofes

siona

l re

spec

t

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)N

orm

ativ

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

MC

ontin

uanc

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

MTu

rnov

er in

tent

ions

(M)

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

clim

ate

(M)

224

empl

oyee

sM

alay

siaLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Boie

s & H

owel

l (2

006)

Ove

rall

LMX

(at t

he te

am

leve

l)

Team

con

flict

(M)

Team

pot

ency

(M)

132

sold

iers

from

35

mili

tary

te

ams

Can

ada

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Erdo

gan,

Lid

en, &

K

raim

er (2

006)

Ove

rall

LMX

Inte

ract

iona

l ju

stice

(M)

Dist

ribut

ive

justi

ce (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal

cultu

re (p

eer)

516

teac

hers

from

30

high

sc

hool

sTu

rkey

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Erdo

gan

& L

iden

(2

006)

Ove

rall

LMX

Inte

ract

iona

l ju

stice

(M)

Dist

ribut

ive

justi

ce

(M)

100

empl

oyee

sTu

rkey

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Pelle

grin

i &

Scan

dura

(200

6)O

vera

ll LM

XPa

tern

alist

ic le

ader

ship

(M)

Del

egat

ion

(M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

185

empl

oyee

sTu

rkey

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Schy

ns &

Cro

on

(200

6)O

vera

ll LM

XSa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

supe

rviso

r (M

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

colle

ague

s (M

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith ta

sk (M

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith jo

b co

nditi

ons (

M)

319

empl

oyee

sG

erm

any

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Arye

e &

Che

n (2

006)

Ove

rall

LMX

Supe

rviso

r con

trol

of re

war

ds (M

)W

ork

unit

clim

ate

(M)

Empo

wer

men

t (M

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)Ps

ycho

logi

cal w

ithdr

awal

be

havi

or (M

)Ta

sk p

erfo

rman

ce (L

)

192

empl

oyee

s nes

ted

with

in

66 su

perv

isors

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Lid

en, W

ayne

, &

Stilw

ell,

1993

) (M

)

Gra

en,

Dha

rwad

kar,

Gre

wal

, &

Wak

abay

ashi

(2

006)

Ove

rall

LMX

Car

eer p

rogr

ess (

over

23

year

s)

(per

sonn

el re

cord

s)65

em

ploy

ees

Japa

n12

item

s (G

raen

et a

l.,

1990

) (M

)

Lapi

erre

, Hac

kett,

&

Tag

gar (

2006

)O

vera

ll LM

XFa

mily

inte

rfere

nce

with

wor

k (M

)Jo

b en

richm

ent (

M)

381

gove

rnm

ent e

mpl

oyee

sC

anad

aLM

X-6

(Sch

riesh

eim

, N

eide

r, Sc

andu

ra, &

Te

pper

, 199

2) (M

)

Bhal

(200

6)Aff

ect

Perc

eive

d co

ntrib

utio

nLo

yalty

(org

aniza

tiona

l ci

tizen

ship

beh

avio

r) (M

)D

istrib

utiv

e ju

stice

(M)

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

(M)

Inte

ract

iona

l jus

tice

(M)

306

empl

oyee

s fro

m 3

0 so

ftwar

e co

mpa

nies

Indi

a10

item

s (Bh

al &

Ans

ari,

1996

) (M

)

Yagi

l (20

06)

LMX

(M)

LMX

(L)

Inte

ract

iona

l ju

stice

(M)

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

(M

)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

152

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Isra

elLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

, L)

Lee

(200

5)Aff

ect

Loya

ltyC

ontr

ibut

ion

Prof

essio

nal

resp

ect

Tran

sform

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip (M

)Tr

ansa

ctio

nal

lead

ersh

ip (M

)Pa

ssiv

e-av

oida

nt

lead

ersh

ip (M

)

Org

aniza

tiona

l com

mitm

ent

(M)

201

rese

arch

and

de

velo

pmen

t em

ploy

ees

Sing

apor

eLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Mar

tin, Th

omas

, C

harle

s, Ep

itrop

aki,

&

McN

amar

a (2

005)

Ove

rall

LMX

Inte

rnal

locu

s of

cont

rol (

M)

Intr

insic

job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Extr

insic

job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Wor

k-re

late

d w

ell-b

eing

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)

404

empl

oyee

s

51 e

mpl

oyee

s

Mid

land

s, U

nite

d K

ingd

om

Sout

h W

ales

, U

nite

d K

ingd

om

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Wan

g, L

aw,

Hac

kett,

Wan

g, &

C

hen

(200

5)

Ove

rall

LMX

Tran

sform

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip (M

)Ta

sk p

erfo

rman

ce (L

)O

rgan

izatio

nal c

itize

nshi

p be

havi

ors (

L)

162

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

81

supe

rviso

rsC

hina

LMX

-MD

M (L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

199

8) (M

)

Schy

ns, P

aul,

Moh

r, &

Bla

nk

(200

5)

Ove

rall

LMX

Rela

tions

hip

tenu

re (M

)Sp

an o

f sup

ervi

sion

(M)

Del

egat

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)O

ccup

atio

nal s

elf-e

ffica

cy (M

)

Four

diff

eren

t em

ploy

ee

sam

ples

rang

ing

from

76

to

326

Ger

man

yLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Epitr

opak

i &

Mar

tin (2

005)

Ove

rall

LMX

Impl

icit–

expl

icit

lead

ersh

ip tr

aits

diffe

renc

e (M

)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Jo

b-re

late

d w

ell-b

eing

(M)

439

empl

oyee

sU

nite

d K

ingd

omLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Che

n &

Tjo

svol

d (2

005)

Ove

rall

LMX

Coo

pera

tive

goal

s (M

)C

ompe

titiv

e go

als (

M)

Inde

pend

ent g

oals

(M)

Lead

er e

ffect

iven

ess (

M)

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Fu

ture

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith th

e le

ader

(M)

230

empl

oyee

s (68

man

ager

s w

ere

from

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es,

95 w

ere

loca

l Chi

nese

, 43

wer

e fro

m H

ong

Kon

g an

d Ta

iwan

, and

24

man

ager

s w

ere

from

Japa

n)

Chi

na5

item

s (G

raen

, Nov

ak, &

So

mm

erka

mp,

198

2) (M

)

Wat

& S

haffe

r (2

005)

Ove

rall

LMX

Trus

t in

supe

rviso

r (M

)Ps

ycho

logi

cal

empo

wer

men

t (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal c

itize

nshi

p be

havi

ors (

L)

183

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

32

man

ager

sH

ong

Kon

gLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Periz

ade

&

Sula

iman

(200

5)Aff

ect

Con

trib

utio

nJo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

Attit

ude

to c

hang

e (M

)

613

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

12

6 m

anag

ers

Indo

nesia

10 it

ems (

Bhal

& A

nsar

i, 19

96) (

M, L

)

Jans

sen

& V

an

Yper

en (2

004)

Ove

rall

LMX

Mas

tery

or

ient

atio

n (M

)Pe

rform

ance

or

ient

atio

n (M

)

In-r

ole

job

perfo

rman

ce (L

)In

nova

tive j

ob p

erfo

rman

ce (L

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)

170

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

14

man

ager

sN

ethe

rland

s7

item

s ada

pted

from

Sc

andu

ra a

nd G

raen

(1

984)

(M)

Hui

, Lee

, &

Rous

seau

(200

4)O

vera

ll LM

XO

rgan

izatio

nal c

itize

nshi

p be

havi

or (L

)Aff

ectiv

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

605

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Hun

g, A

nsar

i, &

Aa

faqi

(200

4)Aff

ect

Loya

ltyC

ontr

ibut

ion

Prof

essio

nal

resp

ect

Affec

tive

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)N

orm

ativ

e or

gani

zatio

nal

com

mitm

ent (

M)

Con

tinua

nce

orga

niza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)

224

empl

oyee

sM

alay

siaLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Erdo

gan,

Kra

imer

, &

Lid

en (2

004)

Ove

rall

LMX

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Car

eer s

atisf

actio

n (M

)52

0 te

ache

rs fr

om 3

0 hi

gh

scho

ols

Turk

eyLM

X-M

DM

(Lid

en &

M

asly

n, 1

998)

(M)

Gup

ta &

Kris

hnan

(2

004)

Ove

rall

LMX

Self-

confi

denc

e (M

)10

2 su

perv

isor–

subo

rdin

ate

dyad

sIn

dia

6 ite

ms (

Gra

en, N

ovak

, &

Som

mer

kam

p, 1

982)

(M)

Kris

hnan

(200

4)O

vera

ll LM

XU

pwar

d in

fluen

ce

strat

egie

s (M

)Va

lue

syste

m c

ongr

uenc

e (M

)Tr

ansfo

rmat

iona

l le

ader

ship

(M)

281

empl

oyee

sIn

dia

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Chi

& L

o (2

003)

Ove

rall

LMX

Proc

edur

al ju

stice

(M)

Dist

ribut

ive

justi

ce (M

)10

4 em

ploy

ees f

rom

15

com

pani

esTa

iwan

8 ite

ms a

dapt

ed fr

om

Scan

dura

& G

raen

(1

984)

by

Baue

r & G

reen

(1

996)

(M)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Tier

ney,

Baue

r, &

Po

tter (

2002

)O

vera

ll LM

XEx

tra-

role

beh

avio

r (M

)O

rgan

izatio

nal c

omm

itmen

t (M

)

100

empl

oyee

sM

exic

o8

item

s ada

pted

from

Sc

andu

ra &

Gra

en (1

984)

by

Bau

er &

Gre

en (1

996)

(M

)

Scha

ubro

eck

&

Lam

(200

2)O

vera

ll LM

XSu

bord

inat

e (M

)–su

perv

isor

(L) p

erso

nalit

y sim

ilarit

y

Prom

otio

n de

cisio

ns

(Pro

mot

ion

Com

mitt

ee)

Perfo

rman

ce (L

)

386

bank

telle

rs n

este

d w

ithin

76

supe

rviso

rs18

5 ba

nk te

llers

nes

ted

with

in 3

6 su

perv

isors

Hon

g K

ong

Uni

ted

Stat

es

LMX

-7 (G

raen

&

Uhl

-Bie

n, 1

995)

(M)

Law,

Won

g, W

ang,

&

Wan

g (2

000)

Ove

rall

LMX

Perfo

rman

ce ra

ting

(L)

Job

assig

nmen

t (L)

Prom

otab

ility

(L)

Bonu

s allo

catio

n po

ssib

ility

(L)

189

supe

rviso

r–su

bord

inat

e dy

ads

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Pelle

d &

Xin

(2

000)

Ove

rall

LMX

Lead

er (p

erso

nnel

re

cord

s)–m

embe

r (M

) gen

der

simila

rity

Lead

er (p

erso

nnel

re

cord

s)–m

embe

r (M

) age

sim

ilarit

y

195

empl

oyee

s90

em

ploy

ees

Mex

ico

Uni

ted

Stat

es6

item

s (G

raen

, Nov

ak, &

So

mm

erka

mp,

198

2) (M

)

Pilla

i, Sc

andu

ra, &

W

illia

ms (

1999

)O

vera

ll LM

XPr

oced

ural

justi

ce (M

)D

istrib

utiv

e ju

stice

(M)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

160

empl

oyee

s80

MBA

stud

ents

85 e

mpl

oyee

s19

0 em

ploy

ees

192

MBA

stud

ents

Austr

alia

Indi

aC

olom

bia

Saud

i Ara

bia

and

Jord

anU

nite

d St

ates

LMX

-7 (S

cand

ura

&

Gra

en, 1

984)

(M)

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

How

ell &

H

all-M

eren

da

(199

9)

Ove

rall

LMX

Follo

wer

per

form

ance

(c

ompa

ny re

cord

s, Ti

me

3)Tr

ansfo

rmat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

(M, T

ime

1)C

ontin

gent

rew

ard

lead

ersh

ip

(M, T

ime

1)M

anag

emen

t by

exce

ptio

n (M

, Tim

e 1)

317

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

10

9 m

anag

ers

Can

ada

4 ite

ms (

Gra

en &

Sc

hiem

ann,

197

8)

(M, T

ime

2)

Epitr

opak

i &

Mar

tin (1

999)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t (M

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)Jo

b-re

late

d w

ell-b

eing

(M)

73 e

mpl

oyee

s of a

n ac

adem

ic

insti

tutio

nU

nite

d K

ingd

omLM

X-7

(Gra

en &

U

hl-B

ien,

199

5) (M

)

Hui

, Law

, & C

hen

(199

9)N

egat

ive

affec

tivity

(M

)In

-rol

e pe

rform

ance

(L)

Org

aniza

tiona

l citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

(L)

386

empl

oyee

s mat

ched

with

12

6 m

anag

ers

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Law

& W

ong

(199

9)O

vera

ll LM

XJo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)Tu

rnov

er in

tent

ion

(M)

224

busin

ess s

choo

l alu

mni

Chi

naLM

X-7

(Sca

ndur

a &

G

raen

, 198

4) (M

)

Ashk

anas

y &

O

’Con

nor (

1997

)Le

ader

–mem

ber

valu

e co

ngru

ence

(L

, M)

160

empl

oyee

s nes

ted

with

in

30 su

perv

isors

Austr

alia

4 ite

ms (

Lide

n &

Gra

en,

1980

) (M

)

O’D

risco

ll &

Bee

hr

(199

4)O

vera

ll LM

XPs

ycho

logi

cal s

trai

n (M

)Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n (M

)Tu

rnov

er in

tent

ion

(M)

Role

am

bigu

ity (M

)Ro

le c

onfli

ct (M

)

136

empl

oyee

s(1

23 e

mpl

oyee

s fro

m N

ew Z

eala

nd a

naly

zed

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith 1

13 e

mpl

oyee

s fro

m th

e U

nite

d St

ates

)

13 it

ems a

dapt

ed

from

Lea

der

Beha

vior

Des

crip

tion

Que

stion

naire

(LBD

Q)

(Sto

gdill

, 196

3)

(con

tinue

d)



Aut

hor(

s)LM

X

Dim

ensi

ons

Ant

eced

ent(

s) a

nd

Sour

ce*

Out

com

e(s)

and

Sou

rce*

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Siz

e/ S

ourc

e C

ount

ryLM

X M

easu

re a

nd

Sour

ce1

Gra

en,

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, & G

raen

(1

990)

Ove

rall

LMX

Org

aniza

tiona

lco

mm

itmen

t (M

)LM

X a

fter 1

0 ye

ars (

M, L

)Pe

rform

ance

(L)

Spee

d of

pro

mot

ion

(per

sonn

el

reco

rds)

Prom

otab

ility

(per

sonn

el

reco

rds)

Job

satis

fact

ion

(M)

Satis

fact

ion

with

su

perv

ision

(M)

Man

agem

ent r

esou

rces

(M, L

)

71 su

perv

isor–

subo

rdin

ate

dyad

sJa

pan

12 it

ems d

evel

oped

for

this

study

(M)

Stei

ner (

1988

)O

vera

ll LM

XIn

trin

sic w

ork

valu

es si

mila

rity

(M)

Extr

insic

wor

k va

lues

sim

ilarit

y (M

)

125

posts

econ

dary

stud

ents

156

colle

ge st

uden

tsFr

ance

Uni

ted

Stat

es5

item

s (G

raen

, Lid

en, &

H

oel,

1982

) (M

)

* M

= v

aria

ble

asse

ssed

bas

ed o

n M

embe

r rep

orts;

L =

var

iabl

e as

sess

ed b

ased

on

Lead

er re

port

s.

Tabl

e 19

.1.

Con

tinu

ed



Pellegrini 371

development is a three-stage process and in the first stage (i.e., role taking), the leader may offer opportunities to the member based on the leader’s perceptions of the member’s abilities (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Therefore, leaders’ percep-tions may significantly influence initial LMX quality starting from the stranger (low-quality) phase through the maturity (high-quality) phase. Furthermore, given the power distance in the leader’s favor, leaders likely play a more signifi-cant role in LMX relationship quality (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012), and it is surprising that research has yet to examine antecedents of LMX quality from the leader’s perspective.

Research examining antecedents of LMX in the international context has predominantly emerged from China (28%), followed by Taiwan (9%) and Turkey (6%). There is a significant need for stud-ies from Latin America, the Middle East, and non-Confucian Asia to gain a more thorough understanding of what drives LMX quality univer-sally as well as locally.

Finally, meta-analytic findings suggest that the strength of the influence of transformational leadership in predicting LMX does not show cross-cultural variations (Rockstuhl et al., 2012). On the other hand, results suggest a significantly weaker association between leader trust (as an ante-cedent) and LMX quality in VC cultures as com-pared to HI cultures. This is an important finding given the significance of trust in LMX theory. We attribute this attenuated association to the moderat-ing effect of national culture (i.e., HI vs. VC); how-ever, we argue that the weaker association may be due to insufficient LMX construct validity in inter-national contexts. The association between leader trust and LMX may be stronger in the Western context because LMX meaning and dimensions originated from the Western context. Also, in the meta-analysis of Rockstuhl et al. (2012), numer-ous VC countries (e.g., China, India, Turkey) are studied as one group; however, business relations in each of these countries are influenced by dif-ferent norms. For example, in China, guanxi may be a more significant predictor of LMX, whereas in Turkey paternalism may be more salient in pre-dicting LMX quality. Each VC context has unique political, historical, and cultural perspectives and there is a significant need to identify additional, emic dimensions to adequately capture LMX con-struct meaning. We certainly do not suggest a sepa-rate LMX theory for each country, which would

move the field away from parsimony and away from a unifying theory of LMX (Liden, 2012). However, as Liden (2012) recently suggested, LMX research from an international context needs to incorporate cultural contextual moderators between LMX and antecedents as well as outcomes. Research from the international context needs to move beyond a predominantly U.S.-based perspective and address LMX construct validity by integrating local cultural nuances into the studies.

Outcomes of LMX in the International Context

International research on LMX predominantly focused on outcomes as compared to antecedents and of the 93 studies we reviewed, 83 (89%) exam-ined one or more outcomes of LMX. Consistent with Rockstuhl et al. (2012), the current review suggests an overwhelming interest specifically in five outcome variables. A majority of the studies exam-ined follower organizational commitment (32%), follower performance (25%), follower turnover intentions (16%), follower job satisfaction (15%), follower OCB (14%), and follower justice percep-tions (14%). This attention in a specific set of out-comes may limit the development of international LMX theory. We suggest that additional outcomes relevant to cross-cultural social exchange relations, such as cultural intelligence and participative deci-sion making, warrant research attention.

The meta-analysis of Rockstuhl et al. (2012) did not find cross-cultural variations in relationships of LMX with followers’ task performance and orga-nizational commitment. However, relationships of LMX with OCB, justice perceptions, job satisfac-tion, and turnover intentions were all significantly stronger in Western contexts than in VC (e.g., Asian) contexts. Although Rockstuhl et al. suggest the moderating influence of national culture (i.e., HI vs. VC) as an explanation for attenuated rela-tionships, we suggest that it is a construct validity issue and that research has yet to identify significant emic LMX dimensions that may be relevant to these particular outcomes. Relationships between LMX and these outcomes may be weaker in the interna-tional context because research has yet to make an effort to clearly understand the conceptual meaning of the LMX construct and appropriately measure its construct domain in the international context.

Furthermore, extant international research on LMX has focused exclusively on follower outcomes. There is a significant need for studies that examine the benefits as well as potential disadvantages for




leaders in high-LMX relationships. For example, Harris and Kacmar (2006), almost a decade ago, showed that high-LMX involved high levels of stress for followers; however, we still do not know much about stressors for leaders in high-LMX rela-tionships. International research that examines the influence of high-LMX on leader outcomes is long overdue and results from this research stream are essential to effectively support high-quality LMX relationships and prevent early leader exit. There is also a significant need for studies that examine the benefits of high LMX relationships that accrue to organizations. Specifically, tangible organizational effectiveness outcomes as outlined by Hiller et al. (2011), such as sales growth, return on invested capital, and profit, have yet to be examined in the international LMX literature.

The majority of the research examining LMX outcomes in an international context measured LMX with LMX-7 (57%) (Scandura & Graen, 1984; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), followed by LMX-MDM (19%) (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), pre-dominantly from the follower’s perspective (95%). The majority of studies employed cross-sectional/common source (58%), cross-sectional/multisource (32%), followed by longitudinal/multisource (6%) research designs. An overreliance on quantitative, cross-sectional studies in LMX research not only limits our understanding of the cultural nuances in LMX meaning but is also an unfitting design choice in studies that imply causal connections (i.e., out-comes research).

In addition, of the 83 studies we reviewed, more than half were from China (32%), India (12%), Malaysia (7%), and Taiwan (6%). There is a signifi-cant need in international LMX research to extend theory development beyond Asia, specifically into Latin American and Middle Eastern business contexts.

Despite two decades of research since Liden and Maslyn (1998) introduced LMX-MDM, out of 83 studies examining LMX outcomes, only 6% assessed LMX as a four-dimensional construct. As previ-ously suggested by Liden and Maslyn (1998), these studies found that different LMX dimensions were differentially associated with outcome variables. For example, in Malaysia (with a predominantly Chinese sample), Ansari et al. (2007) found affect and professional respect were more salient currencies of LMX relationships. In India, Lee (2005) found that all four dimensions were positively related to transformational leadership; however, only loyalty was significantly related to transactional leadership.

More recently, in Malaysia, Lo et al. (2010) found a two-dimensional LMX-MDM measurement model in which affect and loyalty loaded on the first dimension and contribution and respect items loaded on the second dimension. There is a signifi-cant research gap in examining LMX as a multidi-mensional construct. The potential influence of the cultural context on which LMX dimensions may be more salient to individuals in international settings warrants research attention.

Directions for Future International LMX Research

In this section, we will recap our conclusions and offer a number of emerging research direc-tions and rewarding inquiries for future research in international LMX.

Based on this current review of 93 studies in international LMX, we suggest three major limi-tations that characterize this body of research. First, all of these studies failed to integrate emic LMX dimensions into their studies. Cultural context influences leadership prototypes and to advance knowledge, research needs to move beyond a predefined Western conceptualization of LMX and attend to the meanings and perspectives that emerge from international research. Current LMX theory may depict an oversimplification of LMX relationships in non-Western cultures (Khatri, Tsang, & Begley, 2006). An indigenous focus on LMX nuances in international contexts should be a priority to advance LMX theory. Therefore, future research employing qualitative research designs to identify indigenous meanings is warranted.

The second limitation is a predominantly uni-dimensional conceptualization of LMX in current LMX research. This may be a significant limitation in international LMX studies since the priorities ascribed to different LMX dimensions may differ across cultures. An overall LMX quality is certainly an appropriate operationalization depending on the research question; however, multidimensional con-ceptualization of LMX specifically in the interna-tional context would be informative and should be given increasing research attention.

Third, extant LMX research in international contexts predominantly focused on LMX rela-tionship quality and has paid almost no attention to examining relational dynamics and processes (Uhl-Bien, 2006). LMX meaning is limited by the sociocultural context and future research needs to integrate the broader local, historical, and political



Pellegrini 373

contexts in examining relational dynamics in LMX. Research findings from international contexts are specifically apt to contribute in-depth information toward a more comprehensive framework integrat-ing LMX relationships and relationship dynamics. It is also essential that future research moves beyond cultural values and provides richer insight into the processes and local context.

During the past decade, LMX research has increasingly incorporated the broader relational social context into LMX theory building. There is flourishing international research examining social comparison processes in single-leader con-texts, such as LMX social comparison (LMXSC; Vidyarthi et al., 2010), relative LMX (RLMX; Henderson et al., 2008), and LMX relational sepa-ration (Harris et al., 2014). However, to date, there is no international research from dual leader con-texts in which each LMX relationship exists within the context of the other relationship (Vidyarthi et al., 2014).

Furthermore, there is increasing research inter-est in examining LMX relationships within the context of co-worker exchange (CWX), SLMX, and LLX (leader–leader exchange) relations and a fruitful research direction would be to add another dyadic relationship to the current nomenclature (Erdogan & Bauer, 2014). We suggest that a fol-lower’s exchange relationship with his or her for-mal (organizationally assigned) mentor (formal mentor-member exchange; FMMX) is a fruitful, emerging research direction. Mentoring and LMX relationships are embedded in the same organi-zational context and it would be interesting and informative to examine the influence of conflicting advice from the mentor and leader on follower and organizational outcomes.

Finally, organizations are increasingly witness-ing digital lifestyles along with technology-driven work models. We suggest a better understanding of LMX in these newly emerging work structures. This is specifically relevant for international research since traditional LMX theory is built on a founda-tion of hierarchical, face-to-face interactions and may not adequately represent LMX relationships in emerging work models mediated through technol-ogy, such as e-leadership (Avolio, Sosik, Kahai, & Baker, 2014) or a more recent, flatter organizational structure referred to as holacracy (Denning, 2014). International LMX research in emerging, alternative work structures represents an area of considerable opportunity for future studies to make pioneering scholarly and practical contributions.

ConclusionsWe hope that this timely review will serve as a

useful guide in future inquiries into the emerging body of literature in international LMX and will help to advance the field to a more in-depth explo-ration of LMX meaning and relational context.

ReferencesAnand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R.C., & Vidyarthi, P.R. (2011).

Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and pros-pects for the future. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor quality relation-ships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship qual-ity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 970–988.

Ansari, M. A., Hung, D. K. M., & Aafaqi, R. (2007). Leader-member exchange and attitudinal outcomes: Role of procedural justice climate. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28, 690–709.

Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psy-chological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, 793–801.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between leader-member exchange, orga-nizational inflexibility, perceived organizational support, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 2, 138–145.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1997). Value congruence in leader-member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 647–662.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leader-ship source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 105–131.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 192–221.

Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refine-ment and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psycholo-gies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp. 445–466). London, England: Sage.

Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J. M., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leader-ship: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 962–969.

Bakar, H. A., & Sheer, V. C. (2013). The mediating role of perceived cooperative communication in the relationship between interpersonal exchange relationships and perceived group cohesion. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 443–465.

Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1996). The development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.

Bhal, K. T. (2006). LMX-citizenship behavior relation-ship: Justice as a mediator. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 106–117.




Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (1996). Measuring quality of inter-action between leaders and members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 945–972.

Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange-subordinate outcomes relationship: Role of voice and justice. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28, 20–35.

Bhal, K. T., Ansari, M. A., & Aafaqi, R. (2007). The role of gender match, LMX tenure, and support in leader-member exchange. International Journal of Business and Society, 8, 63–80.

Bhal, K. T., & Gulati, N. (2007). Pay satisfaction of software professionals in India. Vikalpa, 32(3), 9–21.

Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N., & Ansari, M. A. (2009). Leader-member exchange and subordinate outcomes: Test of a mediation model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30, 106–125.

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

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

Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Predicting voice: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the U.S. and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84–104.

Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2010). The impact of supervisor-subordinate relationships on morale: Implications for public and private sector nurses’ commitment. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 206–225.

Brunetto, Y., Shacklock, K., Bartram, T., Leggat, S. G., Farr-Wharton, R., Stanton, P., & Casimir, G. (2012). Comparing the impact of leader-member exchange, psy-chological empowerment and affective commitment upon Australian public and private sector nurses: Implications for retention. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2238–2255.

Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. (2013). Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9, 167–207.

Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B.S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796–819.

Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E., Fang, W., & Lu, X. (2009). Developing a three-dimensional model and scale for supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Management and Organization Review, 5, 375–399.

Chen, Y., Yu, E., & Son, J. (2014). Beyond leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation: An indigenous approach to leader–member relationship differentiation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 611.

Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Cross cultural leader-ship: Goal interdependence and leader-member rela-tions in foreign ventures in China. Journal of International Management, 11, 417–439.

Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Guanxi and leader mem-ber relationships between American managers and Chinese employees: Open-minded dialogue as mediator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24, 171–189.

Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A mew look at

individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 202–212.

Chen, Z., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psy-chological contract breach: A dual perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 527–548.

Cheng, B. S., Boer, D., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Yoneyama, S., Shim, D., Sun, J. M., Lin, T. T., Chou, W. J., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). Paternalistic leadership in four East Asian societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 82–90.

Chi, S., & Lo, H. (2003). Taiwanese employees’ justice per-ceptions of co-workers’ punitive events. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 27–42.

Denning, S. (2014, January 15). Making sense of Zappos and holacracy. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes .com/si tes/s tevedenning/2014/01/15/making-sense-of-zappos-and-holacracy/.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further devel-opment. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.

Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., Henderson, D., & Wayne, S. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: A lon-gitudinal study examining the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organiza-tions. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1079–1098.

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.

Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzales-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organiza-tional commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s orga-nizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085–1103.

Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988–1010.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (1999). The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader-member exchanges and employees’ work attitudes and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 237–240.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longi-tudinal study of implicit leadership theories, leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Pyschology, 90, 659–676.

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858–881.

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice cli-mate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1104–1120.

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2014). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In D. Day (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organiza-tional support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305–332.



Pellegrini 375

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a mod-erator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–17.

Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of orga-nizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395–406.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of pater-nalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li., A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and orga-nizations in the Chinese context (pp. 85–127). London, England: Macmillan.

Fielder, F. E., Chemers, M. M., & Mahar, L. (1977). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept. New York: John Wiley.

Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally dis-tributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1252–1261.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.

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.

Gong, Y., Farh, J. L., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2012). Shared dialect group identity, leader–member exchange and self-disclosure in vertical dyads: Do members react similarly? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 26–36.

Graen, G., Dharwadkar, R., Grewal, R., & Wakabayashi, M. (2006). Japanese career progress over the long haul: An empirical examination. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 148–161.

Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on pro-ductivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

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.

Graen, G. B., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generalizability of American hypoth-eses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 1–23.

Gupta, V., & Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of socialization on transformational leadership: Role of leader-member exchange. South Asian Journal of Management, 11, 7–20.

Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader-member exchange on stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 65–84.

Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leader-member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and

LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 314–328.

Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differ-entiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A mul-tilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219.

Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137–1177.

House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409–474.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transforma-tional and transactional leadership, and distance on predict-ing follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.

Hsiung, H., & Tsai, W. (2009). Job definition discrepancy between supervisors and subordinates: The antecedent role of LMX and outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 89–112.

Hu, M. M., Ou, T., Chiou, H., & Lin, L. (2012). Effects of social exchange and trust on knowledge sharing and service innovation. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 783–800.

Huang, X., Chan, S. C. H., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect of leader-member exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call cen-ters in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1124–1144.

Hui, C., & Graen, G. (1997). Guanxi and professional leader-ship in contemporary Sino-American joint ventures in main-land China. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 451–465.

Hui, C., Law, K., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3–21.

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Employment rela-tionships in China: Do workers relate to the organization or the people? Organization Science, 15, 232–240.

Hung, D. K. M., Ansari M. A., & Aafaqi, R. (2004). Fairness of human resource management practices, leader-member exchange and organizational commitment. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 9, 99–120.

Hwang, K. K. (2009). Confucian relationalism: Cultural reflection and theoretical construction. Beijing: Beijing University Press. (in Chinese)

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behav-iors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.

Ishak, N. A., & Alam, S. S. (2009). Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. The mediating impact of self-esteem. International Journal of Business and Management, 4, 52–61.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal ori-entations, the quality of leader- member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.

Joo, B. K. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowl-edge workers: The roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and




turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 69–85.

Joo, B. K., & Ready, K. J. (2012). Career satisfaction: The influ-ences of proactive personality, performance goal orientation, organizational learning culture, and leader-member exchange quality. Career Development International, 17, 276–295.

Karim, J. (2011). Emotional intelligence, leader-member exchange, organizational justice, and outcome vari-ables: A conceptual model. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 390–411.

Khatri, N., Tsang, E. W. K., & Begley, T. M. (2006). Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 61–75.

Kim, B. C. P., Lee, G., & Carlson, K. D. (2010). An examina-tion of the nature of the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organiza-tional levels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 591–597.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of the empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320.

Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 58–72.

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behav-ior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 348–363.

Lapierre, L. M., Hackett, R. D., & Taggar, S. (2006). A test of the links between family interference with work, job enrich-ment and leader-member exchange. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 489–511.

Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143–160.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor–subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 751–765.

Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 655–672.

Li, C., & Hung, C. (2009). The influence of transformational leadership on workplace relationships and job performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 1129–1142.

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizen-ship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404.

Liao, S. H., Hu, D. C., & Chung, H. Y. (2009). The relation-ship between leader-member relations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1810–1826.

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.

Liden, R. C. (2012). Leadership research in Asia: A brief assess-ment and suggestions for the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 205–212.

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 Management, 24, 43–72.

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.

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.

Liu, S., Lin, X., & Hu, W. (2013). How followers’ unethi-cal behavior is triggered by leader- member exchange: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 357–366.

Liu, Z., Cai, Z., Li, J., Shi, S., & Fang, Y. (2013). Leadership style and employee turnover intentions: A social identity perspective. Career Development International, 18, 305–324.

Lo, M. C., Ramayah, T., Min, H. W., & Songan, P. (2010). The relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment in Malaysia: Role of leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16, 79–103.

Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. Y. (2009). Linking leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5, 401–422.

Loi, R., & Ngo, H. Y. (2009). Work outcomes of relational demography in Chinese vertical dyads. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1704–1719.

Martin, R., Thomas, G., Charles, K., Epitropaki, O., & McNamara, R. (2005). The role of leader-member exchanges in mediating the relationship between locus of control and work reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 141–147.

Mehta, A. (2009). Examining the role of personal, social exchange, and contextual fit variables in employee work outcomes under continuous change: A field investiga-tion (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3386211)

O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal out-comes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 141–155.

Ozer, M. (2008). Personal and task-related moderators of leader–member exchange among software developers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1174–1182.

Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (2000). Relational demography and relationship quality in two cultures. Organization Studies, 21, 1077–1094.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 264–279.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic lead-ership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566–593.

Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leader-ship: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory (LMX). Group and Organization Management, 35, 391–420.



Pellegrini 377

Perizade, B., & Sulaiman, M. (2005). Leader-member exchange and leadership effectiveness of chief executive officers in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Business Review, 4, 331–337.

Pillai, R., Scandura, T., & Williams, E. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cul-tures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 763–779.

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

Scandura, T., & Graen, G.B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investiga-tion of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579–584.

Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1120–1136.

Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992). Development and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader-member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135–147.

Schyns, B., & Croon, M. A. (2006). A model of task demands, social structure, and leader- member exchange and their rela-tionship to job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 602–615.

Schyns, B., Paul, T., Mohr, G., & Blank, H. (2005). Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange in a German working context to findings in the US. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 1–22.

Schyns, B., Torka, N., & Gössling, T. (2007). Turnover inten-tion and preparedness for change: Exploring leader-member exchange and occupational self-efficacy as antecedents of two employability predictors. Career Development International, 12, 660–679.

Smith, P. B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M. H., Peterson, M., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the generality of leadership style across cultures. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Staw, B. (1995). Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor: Some unexplored issues in publishing organizational research. In L. Cummings & P. Frost (Eds.), Foundations for organizational science (pp. 85–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leader-member exchange. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 611–618.

Stogdill, R. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII. Bureau of Business Research, University of Ohio, Columbus.

Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit follower-ship theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73–84.

Testa, M. R. (2009). National culture, leadership and citi-zenship: Implications for cross-cultural management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 78–85.

Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N., & Potter, R. E. (2002). Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance, and job attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 292–303.

Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426–478.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676.

van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work con-texts and resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member exchange, perceived development climate and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 313–334.

Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role per-ceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on help-ing and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1195–1207.

Venkataramani, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social net-work ties on LMX and members’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1071–1084.

Vidyarthi, P. R., Erdogan, B., Anand, S., Liden, R. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2014). One member, two leaders: Extending leader-member exchange theory to a dual leadership context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 468–483.

Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849–861.

Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analy-sis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 522–545.

Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involve-ment. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456–465.

Waismel-Manor, R., Tziner, A., Berger, E., & Dikstein, E. (2010). Two of a kind? Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of leader-member similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 167–181.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., & Chen, G. (2008). Leader-member exchange, employee performance, and work outcomes: An empirical study in the Chinese context. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 19, 1809–1824.

Wang, H., Law, S. K, Hackett, R., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ perfor-mance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.

Wang, H., Law, K.S., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. (2001). The Linkage Role of LMX: A mediating effect of LMX on the relationship between transformational leadership and follow-ers’ performance and OCB. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting. Washington, DC, 3–8 August.

Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship qual-ity influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34, 406–422.

Yagil, D. (2006). Perceptions of justice within leader-employee dyads. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9, 291–306.

Yifeng, N., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Goal interdependence and leader-member relationship for cross-cultural leadership




in foreign ventures in China. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29, 144–166.

Yousaf, A., Sanders, K., Torka, N., & Ardts, J. (2011). Having two bosses: Considering the relationships between LMX, satisfaction with HR practices, and organizational com-mitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 3109–3126.

Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 49–77.

Zhou, L., Wang, M., Chen, G., & Shi, J. (2012). Supervisors’ upward exchange relationships and subordinate out-comes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of empower-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 668–680.

AppendixMost frequently used leader–member exchange (LMX) scales listed in descending order of publication date.

LMX-MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998)Seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Affect:1. I like my supervisor very much as a person.2. My supervisor is the kind of person one

would like to have as a friend.3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.

Loyalty:4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a

superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.

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

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

Contribution:7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond

what is specified in my job description.8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond

those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work goals.

9. I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor.

Professional Respect:10. I am impressed with my supervisor’s

knowledge of his/her job.11. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and

competence on the job.12. I admire my supervisor’s professional skills.

LMX-7 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)1. Do you know where you stand with your

leader.… do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? (Does your member usually know)

2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs? (How well do you understand)

3. How well does your leader recognize your potential? (How well do you recognize)

4. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his/her power to help you solve problems in your work? (What are the chances that you would)

5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out” at his/her expense? (What are the chances that you would)

6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decisions if he/she were not present to do so. (Your member would)

7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? (Your member)

Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often

Very Often

Not a Bit

A Little

A Fair Amount

Quite a Bit

A Great Deal

Not at All A Little Moderately Mostly Fully

None Small Moderate High Very High

None Small Moderate High Very High

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

Extremely Worse than

Average Better than

Extremely

Ineffective Average Average Effective



Pellegrini 379

Notes: Continuous scale of sum of 5-point items (1 left to 5 right). Leader’s form consists of the same seven items asked about member (leader in parentheses).

LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984)

1. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand, do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do?

2. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs?

3. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential?

4. Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, what are the chances that he or she would be personally inclined to use power to help you solve problems in your work?

5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, to what extent can you count on him or her to “bail you out” at his or her expense when you really need it?

6. I have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his or her decisions if he or she were not present to do so.

7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor?

1 2 3 4Never Seldom Usually Alwaysknow where I stand

know where I stand

know where I stand

know where I stand

1 2 3 4

Not at all

Some but not enough

Well enough

Completely

1 2 3 4

Not at all

Some but not enough

As much as the next person

Fully

1 2 3 4

No chance

Might or might not

Probably would

Certainly would

1 2 3 4

No chance

Might or might not

Probably would

Certainly would

1 2 3 4

Probably not

Maybe Probably would

Certainly would

1 2 3 4

Less than average

About average

Better than average

Extremely effective





Abstract - UMSL College of Business Administrationbusiness.umsl.edu/files/pdfs/International LMX-Pellegrini-2015.pdf · CA 351 Relational Leadership through the Lens of International

Documents