the impact of leader-member exchange (lmx) and empowerment … · related to job satisfaction,...
Post on 10-Mar-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 44
10.1515/nybj-2016-0004
The Impact of Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and
Empowerment on Employee Voice Behavior
Simon C. H. Chan
1
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Davey Yeung2
Hong Kong Nang Yan College of Higher Education, Hong Kong
Published online: 2 June 2016
© Nang Yan Business Journal 2015
ABSTRACT: This study examines the impact of leader–member exchange (LMX) and the
moderating role of empowerment on employee voice behavior. A sample of 314 supervisor-
subordinate dyadic exchanges was collected from a manufacturing firm in Mainland China.
The results provided support the view that LMX and empowerment were both significantly
associated with employee voice behavior. The positive relationship between LMX and
employee voice behavior was stronger when employees received higher levels of
empowerment. Theoretical and managerial implications of the research are discussed.
Keywords: Leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment, employee voice behavior
JEL codes: L53, M54
1 Teaching Fellow, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Email: simon.ch.chan@polyu.edu.hk
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing and Management, Hong Kong Nang Yan College of Higher
Education, Hong Kong. Email: dyeung@ny.edu.hk
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 45
1. Introduction
There is a large body of leadership literature that examines the quality of leader-follower
relationships (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Tangirala, Green,
& Ramanujam, 2007). The relationship of leader-follower determines the nature of social and
one-on-one reciprocal exchanges between leader and follower. Leader-member exchange (LMX)
illuminates the quality of exchanges between supervisor-subordinate (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Research studies have shown that LMX is positively related to employee attitudes and behavioral
outcomes, such as job performance and job satisfaction (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999;
Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Harris et al. (2009) examined the direct and indirect effects
of LMX and empowerment on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and performance. They
provide an important approach for the examination of the relationship between LMX and
empowerment on employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).
Existing studies have found that LMX and empowerment have direct effects on employee
behaviors (Schriesheim et al., 1999). Studies have also investigated psychological empowerment
as a moderator on the outcomes of supervisor-subordinate relationships (Harris et al., 2009).
However, existing studies have not fully examined the interactive effect of LMX and
empowerment on employee outcomes, such as voice behavior. There is, then, a research gap to
fill, linking LMX and empowerment to employee voice behavior (Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010).
This study uses empowerment as a moderator to examine the relationship between LMX and
employee voice. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to examine the impact of LMX and
empowerment on employee voice behavior. This study extends the existing literature in two
ways. First, it investigates how LMX and empowerment are related to employee behavioral
outcomes. It responds to the call from Harris and colleagues (2009) to examine the impact of
LMX and empowerment on employee job satisfaction. Second, the study adds to the leadership
literature by investigating LMX and empowerment and their relation to employee voice behavior
in a specifically Chinese context.
2. Theory and hypotheses
Leader-member exchange and voice behavior
LMX theory explains the relationship in terms of high to low quality between different leaders
and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High quality exchanges indicate that followers have
better relationships with their leaders (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Such exchanges mean that
followers tend to experience better social support, clearer channels of communication, enhanced
trust, and motivated performance. On the other hand, followers in a low level LMX relationship
have a different experience as evidenced by voice behavior (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Employees
are not willing to speak up if they do not have close relationship with the leader. Social exchange
theory explains high quality relationships between supervisor and subordinates which encourage
better employee outcomes (Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993; Sparrowe & Liden, 2005).
Empirical studies have examined how leadership behaviors are transmitted to employee voice
behaviors (Detert & Burris, 2007; Graham & Van Dyne, 2006; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
Employees’ voice behavior can challenges and upset the status quo of an organization and its
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 46
power holders (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). It is a discretionary provision of information aimed
at improving the organizational and operational functioning of employees (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998). It can be used to promote constructive change in the status quo (Zhou & George, 2001) if
positive in nature.
Hypothesis 1: LMX is positively related to employee voice behavior.
Empowerment and voice behavior
Employee empowerment motivates employees to work by delegating authority from a high level
to the low level in an organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Conger and Kanungo (1988, p. 474) defined empowerment as “a process of enhancing feelings
of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that
foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and
informal techniques providing efficacy information”. Detert and Burris (2007, p. 869) defined
voice as “the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational
functioning which may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its power
holders”.
Considerable research studies have accumulated support on the impact of employee
empowerment and employee performance (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Empowerment
provides employees with intrinsic motivation and allows them to think positively about their role
in the workplace (Spreitzer, 1995). In fact, four main factors are involved: meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the value attributed by employees to their own work
goals and standards. Competence is the belief of employees that they are capable of performing
their work tasks. Self-determination refers to employee choice in task selection and completion.
Impact relates to the main strategic intent on the consequences of organization. The four factors
of psychological empowerment have been associated with positive results (Liden et al., 2000).
Employees are motivated in their work when they are empowered. The empowering experience
can help to generate a strong sense of support in an employee which, in turn, means they are
willing to speak up for the organization. Therefore, empowerment is directly associated with
employee voice behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Empowerment is positively related to employee voice behavior.
The moderating role of empowerment
Empirical research has examined the impact of LMX and empowerment (Gao, Janssen, & Shi,
2011; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004) on employee outcomes. Although one empirical study
(Harris et al., 2009) examined the impact of LMX and empowerment on job performance, there
is less work available that deals with possible consequences, such as employee voice. Social
exchange theory holds that the relationships between LMX and empowerment are significantly
related to job satisfaction, performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover
intention (Harris et al., 2009).
The impact of LMX on employee voice behavior alters according to how employees experience
empowerment from top management. Empowerment provides a direct way to motivate
employees to share information and open up lines of communication. Studies have examined
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 47
situations to discover when and how LMX determines job satisfaction (Harris et al., 2009).
When employees are permitted to participate in decision-making, the trust relationship between
leader and employee is enhanced. The relationship between LMX and employee voice behaviors
is strong when employees are motivated to express their views. On the other hand, when
empowerment is low, the sharing of information and exchange of resources is likely to be less
effective (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). As such, the relationships between LMX and
employee voice behavior are stronger when employees experience a high level of empowerment.
Hypothesis 3: Empowerment moderates the positive relationship between LMX and employee
voice behavior, such that the positive relationship is stronger when empowerment is higher.
3. Research method
The sample consisted of 314 leader-follower dyadic exchanges from the back office of a
manufacturing firm in Mainland China. The manufacturing firm organizes and divides work to
be done into specific tasks and units within a formal line management system. Two sets of
questionnaires were administered to employees and their immediate supervisors separately. The
authors explained the objective of the study, and explained the procedures for completing the
questionnaire. The questionnaires were coded with an assigned identification number so that the
authors were able to match employees’ questionnaires with their immediate leaders’ evaluations.
Subordinates were asked to rate the items on LMX, empowerment and job satisfaction. Leaders
rated the items on employee voice behavior. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were
instructed to seal the completed questionnaires in envelopes and return them directly to the
researchers on-site. Out of 350 set of questionnaires (350 for immediate leaders; 350 for
employees), 314 usable questionnaires (314 leader-employee dyads) were returned, yielding a
usable response rate of 89.7%. The maximum number of surveys completed by a single leader
was three. The mean age and organizational tenure of the employees were 28.66 and 2.05 years
respectively.
Measures
Leader–member exchange: Leader-member exchange was assessed on a 7-item LMX scale
designed by Liden et al. (1993), Scandura, Graen, and Novak (1986), and Scandura and Graen
(1984) (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Sample items were “I have enough confidence
in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so”
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and “How well does your leader understand your job
demands and needs” (1 = not a bit; 5 = a great deal). The Cronbach’s alpha was set at 0.80.
Empowerment: Empowerment as measured by Spreitzer's (1995) 12-item empowerment scale (1
= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “The work I do is meaningful to me.”
The Cronbach’s alpha was set at 0.90.
Employee voice behavior: Van Dyne and LePine (1998) scales was used to measure employee
voice. Leaders’ completed the measure for each employee on supervisory ratings of voice (1 =
strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Sample items from this measure include “This particular
employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group,”
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 48
and “This particular employee speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects of changes in
procedures.” Coefficient alpha for the scale was set at 0.86.
Control variables: Gender, organizational tenure, and age were controlled in the analyses. Past
research has suggested or shown these variables to be related to the outcome variable of
employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Gender was
dummy coded (0 = male, 1 = female). Age and organization tenure were self-reported in years.
4. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics: The means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of all
the key variables are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the research model of gender, age,
organizational tenure, leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment, and employee voice
behavior.
Table 1: Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of measures
Variables
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Gender
.57 .50 --
2 Age
28.66 5.94 -
.23**
--
3 Organizational Tenure
2.05 2.25 -.10 .25** --
4 LMX
3.25 .64 -.03 .03 .12* .80
5 Empowerment
5.04 .87 -
.20**
.24** .17** .44** .90
6 Voice
Behavior
4.59 .82 -.10 .13* .04 .24** .28** .86
Notes: a, n = 314
b The correlation coefficients are significant at * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
c Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 49
Figure 1: Research framework
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 predicts that LMX is positively related to employee voice behavior. Results
indicated that LMX was positively related to voice behavior (β = 0.24, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 1
was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicts that empowerment is positively related to employee voice behavior.
Results indicated that empowerment was positively related to voice behavior (β = 0.28, p < 0.01).
Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that empowerment moderates the positive relationship between LMX and
employee voice behavior, such that the positive relationship is strongest when empowerment is
highest. The moderating role of empowerment was significantly associated with LMX and voice
behavior (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The interaction between
LMX and empowerment predicting job satisfaction and voice behavior were plotted in Figure 2.
Leader-member
Exchange (LMX)
Employee Voice Behavior
Empowerment +
+
+
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 50
Table 2: Tests of leader-member exchange, empowerment and employee voice behavior
Variables
Voice Behavior
Control
Variables
Gender -.09 -.09 -.08 -.06
Age .08 .09 .07 .08
Organization
Tenure
.00 -.02 -.03 -.02
Independent
Variables
LMX .24** .11 .09
Moderators .28** .20**
Empowerment
Moderating
Variable
LMX x
Empowerment
.13*
N 314 314 314 314
Df 3 1 1 1
R2 .06 .24 .41 .42
Δ R2 .06 .18 .17 .01
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Vo
ice
Be
hav
ior
LMX
Figure 2: The moderating effect of empowerment on the link between LMX and voice behavior
High
Low Empowerment
High Empowerment
Low High
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 51
5. Discussion
This study examines the impact of LMX and the moderating role of empowerment on employee
voice behavior. The results support existing studies showing that the relationship of LMX is
positively associated with employee voice. Empowerment also impacts on the voice behavior of
employees. When LMX and empowerment were involved, employee voice behavior was
enhanced by motivation and the authority conferred by empowerment. The highest levels of
voice behavior resulted when LMX quality was high and empowerment was high. Employees
benefit from relationship bonding with supervisors.
Supervisors should maintain good relationships with subordinates to maintain a high LMX. The
interaction between leader and follower plays an important role in shaping the behavior of
employees in expressing their views in organization. Empowerment can allow employees to
respond to different opinions, suggest new policies, and share information freely. It helps to
explain the effectiveness of LMX in engendering employee voice activities. It is encouraging
that employees feel motivated to provide solutions and suggest improvements.
6. Limitation and suggestion for further study
There are a number of major limitations to this study. The cross-sectional nature of the study
implies that causes may be subject to alternative interpretations. In a longitudinal study, the
measurement of cause and effect at different intervals would enhance the validity of the results.
The data were collected in a manufacturing firm in Mainland China. This raises concerns about
the generalizability of the findings to more domestic work settings and organizational structures
in different cultural contexts. There may be different perceptions of expressive employee voice
behavior in some organizations in certain cultural settings (Detert & Burris, 2007). Another
limitation is demographic in nature: both the personal background of supervisors and
subordinates are homogeneous, i.e. young and short organizational tenure. Future studies should
target a more diverse sample. Finally, further study of the relationship between LMX and
empowerment on employee voice behavior are proposed. Future studies should examine other
psychological constructs in the relationship between LMX and empowerment on employee voice
behaviors, such as trust in a leader.
7. Conclusion
To conclude, leadership research on LMX and employee voice behavior is examined. This study
provides new implications for the impact of LMX on employee voice behavior. It provides
guidelines for future work by reviewing and extending the existing literature on how
empowerment and LMX affect employee voice behavior. The positive relationship between
LMX and employee voice behavior was found to be stronger when employees received higher
levels of empowerment.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 52
References
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471–482.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviour and employee voice: Is the door
really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 869-884.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11 (3), 618–634.
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (4), 787-798.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 827–844.
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. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 219–247.
Graham, J. W., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Gathering information and exercising influence: Two
forms of civic virtue organizational citizenship behaviour. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 18 (2), 89-109.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and
empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20 (3), 371-382.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 269–277.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-
member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47 (3), 368-384.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationship with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 86 (2), 326-336.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and
work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 407–416.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 53
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stillwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development
of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 662-674.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010) I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 189-202.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. I. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 705-725.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 428-436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide
autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71 (4), 579-584.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L. & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.
Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), 63–113.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 416–427.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level:
A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47 (3), 332-349.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member
exchange and network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (4), 505–535.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain.
Journal of Management, 23 (5), 679–704.
Tangirala, S., Green, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of
supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2),
309–320.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects
of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (6),
1189-1203.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 54
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements empowerment: An “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 666-681.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108-119.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 682-696.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 55
Appendix
Items of LMX:
1. Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you usually know how satisfied
your leaders is with what you do?
2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?
3. 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?
4. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances
that he/she would “bail me out,” at his/her expense?
5. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if
he/she were not present to do so?
6. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?
7. How well does your leader recognize your potential?
Items of empowerment:
1. The work I do is very important to me.
2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me.
3. The work I do is meaningful to me.
4. I am confident about my ability to do my job.
5. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.
6. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.
7. I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.
8. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.
9. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.
10. My impact on what happens in my work environment is large.
11. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my work environment.
12. I have significant influence over what happens in my work environment.
Items of employee voice:
1. I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this group.
2. I speak up and encourage others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the
group.
3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this group even if my opinion
is different and others in the group disagree with me.
4. I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this group.
5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this group.
6. I speak up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.
UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM
top related