1 / 19

Leader Benefits: Exploring how L eaders Benefit from LMX

Leader Benefits: Exploring how L eaders Benefit from LMX. Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University. Overview. Leader Member Exchange --Social Exchange Statement of the Problem Hypotheses & Model Proposed Methods Contributions. Terms.

vanya
Download Presentation

Leader Benefits: Exploring how L eaders Benefit from LMX

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University

  2. Overview • Leader Member Exchange --Social Exchange • Statement of the Problem • Hypotheses & Model • Proposed Methods • Contributions

  3. Terms • LMX - social exchange relationship between a subordinate and his or her supervisor (Liden et al., 1997; Erdogan & Liden, 2002) • Social exchange - the “general expectation of some future return, [although] its exact nature is definitely not stipulated in advance” (Blau, 1964, p. 93)

  4. Statement of the Problem • Scholars assume, but have not yet empirically demonstrated, supervisors gain personal benefits from LMX relationships (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; van Brekuelen et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2010). • Understanding how those benefits are acquired, such as behaviors and how moderators influence those behaviors

  5. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1: Supervisor-rated LMX is positively related to subordinate-rated social support. • Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the managerial span of control. The relationship will be strongest when span of control is smaller.

  6. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the supervisor-rated LLX. Such that the relationship will be stronger when LLX is higher (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Wilson et al., 2010).

  7. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 4: Subordinate-rated social support partially mediates the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and the supervisor-rated performance of organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the supervisor (OCBIs) (Emerson, 1981; Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980).

  8. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 5: Subordinate-rated social support will mediate the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and supervisor-rated OCBs. The first step of this relationship will be moderated by (a) supervisor-rated span of control and (b) supervisor-rated LLX.

  9. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 6: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor-rated level of satisfaction with their subordinate. • Hypothesis 7: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor-rated level of managerial self-efficacy (MSE).

  10. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 8: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor-rated level of organizational-based self-esteem (OBSE) (Lawler, 2001; Homans, 1950; Weiner, 1985, 1986).

  11. Model How Supervisors Accrue Benefits in LMX Key: SR = Supervisor Rated EE = Employee Rated Moderators: Span of Control (SR) LLX (SR) Supervisor Social Support (EE) Subordinate Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (SR) LMX (From the supervisor’s perspective) (SR) Supervisor Benefits • Job Satisfaction with Subordinate (SR) • Managerial Self-Efficacy (SR) • Organizational-Based Self-Esteem (SR)

  12. Proposed Methods Sample • The sample will consist of full-time working adults from multiple organizations and their immediate supervisors. Procedure: • Sample Supervisor at Time 1, collect LMX, LLX, span of control and gain contact information • Sample Subordinate at Time 2 for social support • Sample Supervisor at Time 2 for Subordinate OCBs, MSE, OBSE, and satisfaction

  13. Measures • Leader Member Exchange and LLX (Bernerth et al., 2007-adopted)—supervisor rated • Span of Control (Hill & Hoskisson, 1987)—supervisor rated • Social Support (Abbey et al., 1985)—employee rated • OCBs (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002)—supervisor rated • OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989)—supervisor rated • MSE (Robertson & Sadri, 1993)—supervisor rated • Subordinate Satisfaction (Spector, 1985)—supervisor rated

  14. Data Analysis • Tests of Model Fit and Construct Distinctiveness • Confirmatory factor analyses • Standardized factor loadings above .50 • Reliability coefficients above .70 (Cronbach, 1951; Raykov, 1997) • AVEs above .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) • Tests of Hypotheses • Path Analysis • Mediation analyses with bootstrapping • Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007)

  15. Thank you! Questions? Comments? Concerns?

  16. Why Social Support? • Blau, 1964—social support as a means of creating a cohesive, stable relationship • Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980—on the importance of resource types • Graen & Scandura, 1987—discretionary resources • Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004—cost

  17. Why LLX & Span of Control? • Barnard, 1938—cooperation through dyads • Blau, 1964—social structures • Emerson, 1972a,b—exchange networks and nodes

  18. Why OCBs? • Similar resources • Emerson & path dependence • Successful exchange value

  19. Why Satisfaction, OBSE, & MSE? • Homans, 1961—propositions in that people look for whether their actions will lead to positive outcomes • Lawler, 2001 & Homans, 1950—these positive outcomes could be affective or cognitive • Predictors of other variables

More Related