LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) RESEARCH: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

OF THEORY, MEASUREMENT, AND DATA-ANALYTIC PRACTICES

Chester A. Schriesheim” University of Miami

Stephanie L. Castro Louisiana State University

Claudia C. Cogliser Oregon State University

Research conducted since the construct of leader-member exchange (LMX) was first investigated in 1972 is reviewed with respect to the theoretical, measurement, and analytic adequacy of LMX studies. It is shown that conceptual definitions of LMX and its subdimensions have evolved over time, often with little reason or rationale given for changes. Likewise, the measures employed to assess LMX have varied widely and have included an almost bewildering array of diverse item content. Finally, LMX research has rarely examined the level of analysis at which its findings hold. All of these shortcomings lead to the conclusion that we may know less than we should about fundamental leader-member exchange processes and that future research must be conducted with greater attention devoted to the key issues outlined in this review.

The relationship-based approach to leadership research developed by Graen, Dan- sereau, and colleagues over two decades ago (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) has undergone an interesting metamorphosis since its infancy. This approach was initially termed the “Vertical Dyad Linkage” (VDL) model of leadership (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975), and it subsequently evolved along

* Direct all correspondence to: Chester A. Schriesheim, Department of Management, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, 414 Jenkins Building, Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145; e-mail: chet@ miamiedu.

Leadership Quarterly, 10(l), 63-113. Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843

64 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 109’)

two very different lines of development. The first branch of development from the early VDL approach appears to be most commonly called the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982b), although it has sometimes been given other labels as well (e.g., the “Leadership-Making” model: cf., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). The second branch of VDL development has been the recent “Individualized Leadership” (IL) model of Dansereau and colleagues (1995b), which is quite different from the LMX approach and is briefly discussed later in this review.

A recent meta-analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997) has shown that interest in the first branch of the VDL approach, the LMX model, has been increasing substantially over the years, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in the number of scholarly papers recently produced in this domain (see the first line in Table 3 for a summary of LMX studies over time). The review by Gerstner and Day (1997) also shows that LMX research has been quite fruitful, as LMX has been a significant correlate of such variables as increased subordinate satisfaction (e.g., Graen et al., 1982b), increased subordinate performance (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas, 1982) enhanced subordinate career outcomes (e.g., Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984). and decreased propensity to quit (e.g., Vecchio, 1982).

However, as we demonstrate in this review, there are some fundamental problems related to the validity of the LMX construct, its measurement, and the data analytic procedures which have been used in the majority of LMX investigations to date. In particular, the construct has some basic definitional problems, the measures used to assess LMX have varied substantially without explanation, and the analytic procedures utilized have generally not been aligned with the theory being proposed and tested. These issues draw into question the usefulness of any substantively oriented synthesis of extant LMX literature. However, our intent is not to criticize early or more recent reviews, but rather to highlight the fundamental issues which are raised regarding the LMX construct and its associated research.

BACKGROUND

Summarizing the evolution of LMX theory over nearly 30 years, Graen and Uhl- Bien (1995) recently suggested that LMX theory has passed through four stages, with each stage building on the stages preceding it (in terms of theoretical clarification of the LMX process). Stage One research found that leaders developed differentiated relationships with their subordinates, a departure from the prevailing approach to leadership which assumed that leaders displayed consistent behavior toward all subordinates in their work units (the so-called “Average Leadership Style” or ALS model). The second stage focused on these different relationships the leader had within the work unit and began the explication of the nomological network sur- rounding the LMX construct; the majority of LMX research has been conducted with a Stage Two focus (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

The Leadership Making model (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) shifted LMX research into Stage Three, and moved the emphasis from the leader’s differentiation of subordinates to “how they may work with each person on a one-on-one basis to develop a partnership with each of them” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 229). The

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 6.5

final stage broadens the scope from the dyad to larger collectives, exploring how dyadic relationships are organized within and beyond the organizational system.

Despite the apparent high level of scholarly interest in LMX theory and the description of the theory’s evolution offered by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), as mentioned earlier, serious concerns about this approach still remain. In particular, a number of scholars have expressed reservations regarding the adequacy of LMX theory (e.g., Dansereau, Yammarino, & Markham, 1995a; Dienesch & Liden, 1986). the adequacy of LMX measures which have been employed in LMX studies (e.g., Barge & Schlueter, 1991, Yukl, 1994) and the appropriateness of the methodologies which have been used for data analysis in LMX research (e.g., Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995).

Much of this concern has arisen from the fact that the theoretical conceptualiza- tion and operational measurement of the LMX construct have evolved since its inception (Yukl, 1994). Additionally, we believe that it is not unreasonable to take issue with the assertion that development of the LMX approach has followed as orderly and chronological a progression as Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) portray. The four-stage model presents an overview of the progression of LMX theory through various stages of development; we maintain that the development of the theory within each of its stages of development is equally if not more important. Additionally, while Graen and Uhl-Bien have categorized various LMX studies, it is difficult to follow the development of the construct (i.e., the ideas) from their presentation. For example, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s discussion of Stages One, Two, and Three all contain references to papers within the same time frame (from 1984 to 1987). This chronological “mixing” of studies thus appears to contradict the assertion that the theoretical development of the LMX construct has been chrono- logically progressive and based on previous LMX theory: there does not appear to have been a clear development and refinement of ideas over time.

The above concerns notwithstanding, however, the evolution of LMX theory, measurement, and analytic methodology should be seen positively in general, partic- ularly as contrasted with “frozen” or “static” theory (cf., Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b), and we trace this evolution in some detail below. While the theory has been the subject of previous reviews and critiques (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984) we extend and update these prior reviews by systemati- cally evaluating the LMX approach from its birth to the present in a detailed, comprehensive manner. Before beginning our review, we should note that our purpose is not to be critical but to take stock of the past.

We thus review the state of the LMX approach with an eye toward advancing specific recommendations for future research. These are offered with the hope that they will serve to further stimulate increased interest in the study of leader-member exchange and, at the same time, help improve the quality of future work in this domain. (Parenthetically, we should also note that we rely heavily on tabular presen- tations to efficiently and concisely summarize a large amount of information in the

review which follows.) In reviewing LMX theory and research, we hope to focus on the development

of concepts related to LMX. Additionally, the various perspectives in the LMX literature on the issue of levels-of-analysis will be reviewed. The scales used to

66 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. t 0 No. 1 1999

measure LMX will also be examined, The multiple changes which have been made in LMX scales will be addressed, as will problems associated with these changes. The revisions made in the measure of LMX which Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) recommend indicate that the measurement problems which have existed since LMX (or VDL) was first introduced into the literature have not been corrected or ad- dressed. Finally, the extent to which studies have examined levels-of-analysis issues will be reviewed.

LMX THEORY, MEASURES, AND ANALYSES: A REVIEW

Develpoment of Theory About the LMX Construct

An oft-quoted statement by Kurt Lewin (1951) is that “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” Most scholars would agree that a “good” theory has as its basis precise concepts and definitions (upon which its propositions and bound- aries are established) and that its propositions should be clear and organized in a systematic way (Bacharach, 1989; Copi, 1954). This very preciseness of theoretical concepts creates an environment conducive to data gathering and thus promotes cumulative knowledge within a particular research domain (Achinstein, 1968; Osig- wey, 1989). Theoretical developments should include not only an acknowledgment of previous theory, but also a clear explication of the logic behind any new proposi- tions and an identification of the contribution of the new to the previous work (Sutton & Staw, 1995); a clear link between previous theory and new theory that is being proposed helps promote the cumulative development of ideas over time.

Evolution of LMX Theory In examining the adequacy of LMX theory, it is most straightforward to trace

the history of the LMX concept. In this regard, and as mentioned above, it is apparent that the theoretical content and dimensionality of LMX has varied consid- erably over the years. This is shown in Table 1; the works included there were uncovered by an extensive library search and by examining major reviews of LMX research for additional sources (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986: Gerstner & Day 1997; Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).

As shown in Table 1, the earliest LMX studies (Studies 1 through 5) were exploratory in nature and did not provide much detail with respect to theoretically defining the LMX construct or delineating its dimensionality (i.e., the subdomains or subareas which would be considered part of LMX). This exploratory nature is also reflected in the use of the Ohio State Consideration and Initiating Structure measures to assess aspects of LMX, a practice which subsequently was abandoned and no longer occurs.

Haga, Graen, and Dansereau (1974) broke with the earlier emphasis on explor- atory research and began the movement toward the most commonly employed treatments of LMX. The research by Dansereau et al. (1975) and Graen and Cashman (1975) then further deveioped the theoretical definition of LMX and began the evolution toward current measures of LMX. Graen (1976) proposed that

Stud

v

Tabl

e 1.

E

volu

tion

of L

MX

Def

initi

on

and

Dim

ensi

onal

ity

Theo

retic

al

Defin

ition

Subd

imen

sions

. Su

bdom

ains

. or

Su

bcon

tent

1.

Gra

en,

Dan

sere

au,

& M

inam

i (1

972a

) 2.

G

raen

, D

anse

reau

, &

Min

ami

(197

2b)

Spec

ial

inte

rdep

ende

nt

rela

tions

hip

of

lead

er

and

mem

ber

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

3,

Dan

sere

au,

Cas

hman

, &

Gra

en

(197

3)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

4.

Gra

en,

Dan

sere

au,

Min

ami,

& C

ashm

an

(197

3a)

5.

Gra

en,

Orri

s,

& Jo

hnso

n (1

973b

) 6.

H

aga,

Gra

en,

& D

anse

reau

(1

974)

7.

D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

975)

8.

G

raen

&

Cas

hman

(1

975)

9.

” G

raen

(1

976)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Non

e gi

ven

Non

e gi

ven

Inte

rper

sona

l ex

chan

ge

rela

tions

hip

Inte

rper

sona

l ex

chan

ge

rela

tions

hip

Exch

ange

re

latio

nshi

p

10.

Cas

hman

, D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

976)

Ex

chan

ge

rela

tions

hip

It.

Gra

en

& G

insb

urgh

(1

977)

Ex

chan

ge

patte

rn;

lead

er

acce

ptan

ce

12.

Gra

en,

Cas

hman

, G

insb

urgh

, &

Schi

eman

n (1

977)

13

. Sc

hiem

ann

(197

7)

Link

ing

pin

qual

ity

14.

Gra

en

& Sc

hiem

ann

(197

8)

Rol

e-m

akin

g;

dual

ex

chan

ge

rela

- tio

nshi

p Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e

Con

sider

atio

n an

d st

ruct

ure.

Con

side

ratio

n,

stru

ctur

e,

influ

ence

, do

min

ance

, an

d co

mpe

tenc

e.

Stru

ctur

e.

Con

sider

atio

n an

d st

ruct

ure.

Supe

rvis

or’s

at

tent

ion.

At

tent

ion.

In

terp

erso

nal

attra

ctio

n an

d lo

yalty

; at

tent

ion.

su

ppor

t, an

d se

nsiti

vity

. In

terp

erso

nal

attra

ctio

n an

d lo

yalty

. C

ompe

tenc

e,

inte

rper

sona

l sk

ill,

and

trust

(m

entio

ned

in g

ener

al);

supp

ort,

sens

itivi

ty,

and

trust

(m

entio

ned

as s

peci

fic s

ubas

pect

s).

Atte

ntio

n an

d se

nsiti

vity

.

Atte

ntio

n,

sens

itivi

ty,

supp

ort,

rew

ard,

an

d sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

lead

er

rela

tions

. In

fluen

ce,

latit

ude,

su

ppor

t. at

tent

ion,

se

nsiti

vity

, an

d sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

lead

er

and

rew

ards

. R

esou

rces

, su

ppor

t, an

d tru

st l

iste

d in

tex

t; tru

st,

latit

ude,

ex

chan

ge,

influ

ence

, an

d su

ppor

t de

pict

ed

in m

odel

. Se

nsiti

vity

, at

tent

ion,

in

form

atio

n,

and

supp

ort

(reci

proc

al

influ

ence

, ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l ex

chan

ge,

mut

ual

trust

, re

spec

t, an

d lik

ing,

an

d co

mm

on

fate

are

pre

sent

ed

as d

escr

iptiv

e of

hig

h qu

ality

re

la-

tions

hips

).

(conti

nued

)

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontin

ued)

Jam

es,

Gen

t, H

ater

&

Cor

ay

(197

9)

Parti

cipa

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties

16.

Lide

n &

Gra

en

(198

0)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

17.

Schr

iesh

eim

(1

980)

D

yadi

c le

ader

be

havi

or

18.

Jam

es,

Hat

er,

& Jo

nes

(198

1)

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r in

fluen

ce:

cont

rol

IY.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Kate

rber

g &

Hor

n (1

981)

W

akab

ayas

hi,

Min

ami,

Has

him

oto,

Sa

no,

Gra

en,

& N

ovak

(19

81)

Dan

sere

au,

Alut

to,

Mar

kham

, &

Dum

as

(198

2)

Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oe1

(198

2a)

Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp

(198

2b)

Kim

&

Org

an

(198

2)

Gre

en,

Blan

k,

& Li

den

(198

3)

Non

e gi

ven

Verti

cal

exch

ange

Lead

ersh

ip

atte

ntio

n

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

rela

tions

hip

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

rela

tions

hip

24.

2.5.

N

onco

ntra

ctua

l so

cial

exc

hang

e Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e

26.

Nac

hman

, D

anse

reau

, &

Nau

ghto

n (1

983)

R

osse

& K

raut

(1

983)

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Cha

ssie

(19

84)

Verti

cal

exch

ange

qu

ality

Fu

kam

i &

Lars

on

(I 98

4)

Supe

rvis

ory

rela

tions

N

ovak

(19

84)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Scan

dura

&

Gra

en

(198

4)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Subd

irne~

s~~n

s,

Subd

omui

ns,

or S

ubco

nten

t

Supe

rvis

or’s

de

scrip

tion

of p

artic

ipat

ion.

op

portu

nitie

s,

and

deci

sion

- m

akin

g la

titud

e.

Trus

t, co

mpe

tenc

e,

and

mot

ivat

ion.

Le

ader

st

ruct

urin

g be

havi

or

and

lead

er

cons

ider

atio

n.

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude,

le

ader

at

tent

ion,

cl

osen

ess

of s

uper

visi

on,

and

use

of d

isci

plin

ary

actio

ns.

Con

sider

atio

n an

d in

itiatin

g st

ruct

ure.

As

sist

ance

and

sup

port,

un

ders

tand

ing.

la

titud

e,

auth

ority

. an

d in

form

atio

n.

11 d

imen

sion

s of

lead

ersh

ip

atte

ntio

n (n

ot

spec

ifica

lly d

iscu

ssed

).

Non

e di

scus

sed.

N

one

disc

usse

d.

Trus

t an

d in

fluen

ce

by n

orm

s of

soc

ial

exch

ange

. Ex

chan

ge

qual

ity,

lead

er’s

pers

onal

se

nsiti

vity

to

em

ploy

ee.

leve

l of

co

ntrib

utio

n of

em

ploy

ee,

and

lead

er’s

hand

hng

of p

erfo

rman

ce

prob

lem

s.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Sens

itivi

ty,

atte

ntio

n.

and

supp

ort

from

lea

ders

, m

ore

time

spen

t on

w

ork

activ

ities

, gr

eate

r w

illing

ness

to

con

tribu

te

idea

s to

uni

t. an

d gr

eate

r co

ngru

ence

be

twee

n pr

esen

t an

d de

sired

ro

le h

ehav

ior.

Supe

rvis

or

time.

atte

ntio

n,

mem

ber

loya

lty.

and

com

mitm

ent.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l as

sist

ance

. job

la

titud

e.

and

help

w

ith j

ob

prob

lem

s.

Supe

rvis

or

said

to

be a

ble

to o

ffer

latit

ude.

in

fluen

ce

in d

ecis

ion-

m

akin

g.

com

mun

icat

ions

, su

ppor

t, co

nfid

ence

. an

d co

nsid

erat

ion

Stud

y Th

eore

tical

D

efin

ition

Su

bdim

ensi

ons,

Su

bdw

nain

s,

or S

ubco

nten

t

32.

33.

34.

Seer

s &

Gra

en

(198

4)

Snyd

er,

Willi

ams,

&

Cas

hman

ww

Ve

cchi

o &

Gob

del(l9

84)

3s.

Wak

abay

ashi

&

Gra

en

(198

4)

36.

Ferri

s (1

985)

31

. Li

den

(198

5)

38.

Snyd

er &

Bru

ning

(1

985)

39

. Ve

cchi

o (1

985)

40

.* D

iene

sch

& Li

den

(198

6)

41.

Duc

hon,

G

reen

&

Tabe

r (1

986)

42.

Scan

dura

. G

raen

&

Nov

ak

(198

6)

43.

Vecc

hio,

G

riffe

th,

& H

orn

(198

6)

44.

Die

nesc

h (1

987)

45

. Fa

irhur

st,

Rog

ers.

&

Saar

(19

87)

46.

Gas

t (1

987)

47.

Laga

ce (

1987

) 48

.+

Gra

en

& Sc

andu

ra

(198

7)

49.

Nov

ak &

G

raen

(1

987)

SO.

Vecc

hio

(198

7)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Tr

ust

in s

uper

viso

r N

one

disc

usse

d.

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude:

in

/out

st

atus

w

ith

supe

rvis

or

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

rela

tions

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e Le

ader

-mem

ber

exch

ange

; le

ader

ship

in

terp

erso

nal

sens

itivi

ty

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Tale

nt

and

trust

. N

one

disc

usse

d.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

N

one

disc

usse

d.

Exch

ange

qu

ality

of

lead

ersh

ip

rela

- tio

nshi

p Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e R

ole-

mak

ing

Socia

l in

tera

ctio

n co

ntrib

utin

g to

qu

ality

of

the

exch

ange

Con

tribu

tion

to t

he e

xcha

nge,

mut

ual

loya

lty,

and

mut

ual

affe

ct.

Takin

g su

gges

tions

to

sup

ervi

sor,

assi

stan

ce w

ith

prob

lem

s;

and

depe

ndab

ility

with

su

perv

isor

. H

igh

qual

ity

rela

tions

hip

char

acte

rized

by

rec

ipro

cal

trust

.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge;

neg

otia

ting

latit

ude

Qua

lity

of r

esou

rce

exch

ange

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e

Perc

eive

d co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

exc

hang

e,

loya

lty.

and

affe

ct.

Exte

nt

to w

hich

a

supe

rvis

or

nego

tiate

s ra

ther

th

an p

resc

ribes

ro

le

expe

ctat

ions

an

d ot

her

job

issu

es; c

ompa

rativ

e do

min

ance

. to

tal

dom

inan

ce,

and

trans

actio

nal

rigid

ity.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Trus

t.

Qua

lity

of r

ecip

roca

l ex

chan

ge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

(loya

lty,

supp

ort.

and

trust

) an

d co

uplin

g (in

fluen

ce,

dele

ga-

tion,

lat

itude

, an

d in

nova

tiven

ess)

. Ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l re

sour

ces

(inclu

ding

tru

st,

expe

rtise

. an

d co

ntro

l of

or

gani

zatio

nal

reso

urce

s).

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontin

ued)

Stud

y Th

eore

tical

De

finitio

n Su

bdim

ensio

ns,

Subd

omai

ns.

or

Subc

onte

nt

51‘

Blau

(1

988)

Q

ualit

y of

me~

tor/p

rot~

g~

exch

ange

52

. K’

Qbo

nyo

(198

8)

Rol

e-m

akin

g

53.

Lean

a (1

988)

R

ole

latit

ude

54.

Peck

(19

88)

Qua

lity

of r

elat

ions

hip

55.

Scan

dura

(1

988)

Ex

chan

ge

56.

Sidh

u (1

988)

57,

Stei

ner

(198

8)

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude;

qu

ality

of

ex

chan

ge

Lead

ersh

ip

exch

ange

58.

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, G

raen

, &

Gra

en

(198

8)

Fairh

urst

&

Cha

ndle

r (1

989)

H

enem

an,

Gre

enbe

rger

, &

Anon

yuo

(198

9)

Kozlo

wsk

i &

Doh

erty

(1

989)

Se

ers

(198

9)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

59.

60.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Socia

l st

ruct

ure

of e

xcha

nge;

ne

gotia

ted

powe

r an

d so

cial

dis

tanc

e.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Trus

t, in

tera

ctio

n,

supp

ort,

and

rew

ards

.

61.

62.

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude

Qua

lity

of te

am-m

embe

r ex

chan

ge

63.

64.

65.

66.

Wak

abay

ashi

&

Gra

en

(198

9)

Wei

tzel

&

Gra

en

(198

9)

Zale

sny

& Ki

rsch

(1

989)

D

obbi

ns,

Car

dy,

& Pl

atz-

Vien

o t1

9w

Doc

kery

&

Stei

ner

(199

0)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of w

orkin

g re

latio

nshi

p Q

ualit

y of

wor

king

rela

tions

hip

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

67.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Con

tribu

tion,

m

utua

l un

ders

tand

ing,

an

d su

ppor

t. C

once

rn,

supp

ort,

cons

ider

atio

n,

attra

ctio

n,

role

or

ient

atio

n,

bar-

gain

ing,

op

enne

ss,

trust

, su

ppor

t, an

d fe

edba

ck.

Subo

rdin

ate

capa

bilit

y,

trust

wor

thin

ess,

an

d m

otiv

atio

n to

ass

ume

grea

ter

resp

onsi

bilit

y.

Ope

nnes

s, t

rust

, su

ppor

t, an

d fe

edba

ck.

Task

ass

ignm

ent

(cha

lleng

e),

reso

urce

allo

catio

n,

and

eval

uatio

n (p

er-

form

ance

ap

prai

sal).

At

tent

ion

and

supp

ort.

Influ

ence

an

d su

ppor

t be

yond

th

e em

ploy

men

t co

ntra

ct,

auto

nom

y.

and

resp

onsi

bilit

y.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Trus

t, di

scre

tion,

an

d co

mm

unic

atio

n.

Rec

ipro

city

be

twee

n a

mem

ber

and

the

peer

gr

oup-

wilii

ngnc

ss

to

assi

st o

ther

s; s

hare

ide

as a

nd

feed

back

; av

aila

bilit

y of

info

rma-

tio

n,

help

, an

d re

cogn

ition

from

pe

er g

roup

. Tr

ust

and

supp

ort.

Mut

ual

cont

rol

and

exch

ange

of v

alue

d re

sour

ces,

inc

ludi

ng

expe

rtise

. Jo

b la

titud

e,

mut

ual

trust

, an

d lo

yalty

. Le

ader

ship

vs

. sup

ervi

sion

: in

form

al

feed

back

and

coa

chin

g.

Influ

ence

an

d su

ppor

t be

yond

th

e em

ploy

men

t co

ntra

ct:

reci

proc

al

supp

ort.

mut

ual

trust

. re

spec

t, lik

ing,

gr

eate

r in

tera

ctio

n.

and

grea

ter

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r su

bord

inat

e.

tl.~~

~?l;ll

li~~4

~)

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

16.

17.

78.

Gra

en,

Wak

abay

ashi

. G

raen

, &

Gra

en

(199

0)

Laga

ce (

1990

) N

ystro

m

(199

0)

Tann

er

& C

astle

berry

(1

990)

Tu

rban

, Jo

nes,

&

Roz

elle

(1

990)

U

hl-B

ien,

Ti

erne

y,

Gra

en,

& W

akab

ayas

bi

(199

0)

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, &

Uhl

-Bie

n (1

990)

W

ayne

& F

erris

(1

990)

Ya

mm

arin

o &

Dub

insk

y (1

990)

Basu

(19

91)

Del

uga

& Pe

rry (

lPP1

)

79.*

Gra

en

& U

hl-B

ien

(199

1)

80.

Kron

e (1

991)

81.

McC

Iane

(1

991a

)

82.

McC

lane

(1

.991

b)

83.

Salzm

ann

& G

rash

a (1

991)

Qua

lity

of v

ertic

al

exch

ange

N

one

disc

usse

d.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Supe

rvis

ory

supp

ort,

latit

ude,

an

d at

tent

ion;

m

embe

r co

ntrib

utio

n.

Dis

cret

ion.

at

tent

ion,

in

fluen

ce,

supp

ort,

info

rmat

ion,

an

d ot

her

reso

urce

s.

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e re

latio

nshi

p

Qua

lity

of r

elat

ions

hip

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Latit

ude;

su

perv

isor

at

tent

ion

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Soci

al

exch

ange

re

latio

nshi

ps

Mat

urity

of

rel

atio

nshi

p (L

eade

rshi

p-

mak

ing

mod

el)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude

Neg

otia

ting

latit

ude

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Latit

ude,

su

ppor

t, an

d at

tent

ion.

Li

king

. At

tent

ion,

su

ppor

t, in

form

atio

n,

influ

ence

, au

thor

ity,

and

latit

ude.

Dep

enda

bilit

y,

help

~lne

ss,

trust

, an

d re

latio

nshi

p ef

fect

iven

ess.

Supp

ort,

guid

ance

, an

d in

fluen

ce

in d

ecis

ions

. 9

dim

ensi

ons

(onl

y 3

give

n-pr

ovid

ing

info

rmat

ion,

en

cour

agem

ent,

and

perfo

rman

ce

feed

back

). Lo

yalty

, su

ppor

t, au

tono

my.

an

d in

fluen

ce

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing;

qu

ality

an

d co

uplin

g.

Inte

rper

sona

l at

tract

ion,

m

utua

l in

fluen

ce,

supp

ort

and

trust

, an

d fo

rmal

an

d in

form

al

rew

ards

. Lo

yalty

an

d su

ppor

t (m

atur

e re

latio

nshi

p sa

id t

o be

ch

arac

teriz

ed

by

reci

proc

al

influ

ence

, ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l be

havi

or,

mut

ual

trust

, re

spec

t, lik

ing,

an

d in

tern

aliza

tion

of c

omm

on

goal

s).

Parti

cipa

tion

in c

omm

unic

atio

n an

d ad

min

istra

tion

activ

ities

, su

per-

viso

r su

ppor

t, an

d re

spon

sive

ness

. Le

ader

’s w

illing

ness

to

allo

w ch

ange

s in

mem

ber’s

jo

b,

and

lead

er’s

incl

inat

ion

to u

se p

ower

to

hel

p m

embe

r so

lve

prob

lem

s.

Lead

er’s

willi

ngne

ss

to a

llow

chan

ges

in m

embe

r’s

job,

an

d le

ader

’s in

clin

atio

n to

use

pow

er

to h

elp

mem

ber

solv

e pr

oble

ms.

Su

perv

isor

ad

apta

bilit

y to

cha

nge,

hel

pful

ness

, ap

proa

chab

ility,

an

d ef

fect

iven

ess

of w

ork

rela

tions

hip.

Smdy

84.

Sten

ina,

Pe

rrew

e,

Was

sell.

H

ahis

, &

May

field

(1

991)

85

. U

hl-B

ien

(199

1)

86.

Wal

dron

(1

991)

Theo

retic

al

Defin

ition

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Subd

itnen

sions

, Su

bdom

nins

, or

Su

bcon

tent

Trus

t, ne

gotia

ting

latit

ude,

~n

form

at~o

n~ in

fluen

ce.

conf

iden

ce.

and

conc

ern

from

le

ader

.

87.

Baug

h (1

992)

88

. C

arne

vale

&

Wec

hsle

r (1

992)

89

. D

ay 4

% C

rain

(1

992)

90

. D

elug

a (1

992)

92

. D

uneg

an,

Duc

hon,

&

Uhl

-Bie

n (1

992)

92

. D

uneg

an,

Tier

ney,

&

Duc

hon

(199

2)

93.

Ger

ras

(199

2)

94.

Ges

sner

(19

92)

95.*

Gra

en

& W

akab

ayas

hi

(199

2)

96.

Mar

kham

, M

urry

, &

Scot

t (1

992)

97

. Sc

hrie

shei

m,

Nei

der.

Scan

dura

, &

Tepp

er

(199

2a)

98.

Schr

iesh

eim

, Sc

andu

ra,

Eise

nbac

h,

& N

eide

r (1

9921

3)

99.

Tiem

ey

(199

2)

lOO

.* U

hl-B

ien

& G

raen

(1

992)

101.

Ya

mm

arin

o &

Dub

insk

y (1

992)

102.

Ba

ugh,

G

raen

&

Page

(19

93)

Rol

e-m

akin

g pr

oces

ses

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Trus

t an

d m

utua

l ex

chan

ge

of in

form

atio

n an

d re

sour

ces.

As

sist

ance

, at

tent

ion,

su

ppor

t, in

form

al

rew

ards

, an

d ne

gotia

ting

latit

ude.

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e Tr

ust,

atte

ntio

n.

and

supp

ort.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Trus

t, ne

gotia

ting

latit

ude,

an

d co

nfid

ence

in

sup

ervi

sion

. Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e Tr

ust,

inte

ract

ion,

su

ppor

t, an

d re

war

ds.

Qua

lity

of s

ocia

l ex

chan

ge r

elat

ions

hip

Mut

ual

influ

ence

, lo

yalty

. su

ppor

t, an

d a

sens

e of

com

mon

fa

te.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Addi

tiona

l re

sour

ces

rece

ived

(in

form

atio

n,

inte

ract

ion,

an

d

Qua

lity

of in

tera

ctio

n pe

rson

al

conc

ern)

. N

one

disc

usse

d.

Exch

ange

qu

ality

; ro

le-m

akin

g Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e M

atur

ity

of le

ader

ship

re

latio

nshi

p Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e

Con

tribu

tion,

af

fect

, and

loy

alty

. R

espo

nsib

ility,

tru

st,

and

com

pete

nce.

M

utua

l tru

st,

resp

ect,

and

oblig

atio

n.

Lead

ersh

ip

atte

ntio

n.

Perc

eive

d co

ntrib

utio

n,

loya

lty,

and

affe

ct.

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Lead

ersh

ip-m

akin

g m

odel

Perc

eive

d co

ntrib

utio

n,

loya

lty,

and

affe

ct.

Addi

tiona

l re

spon

sibi

lity.

ris

k-ta

king

. an

d ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l ac

tiviti

es.

Mat

ure

rela

tions

hip

char

acte

rized

by

rec

ipro

cal

influ

ence

, ex

traco

n-

tract

ual

beha

vior

, m

utua

l tru

st,

resp

ect.

likin

g,

and

a se

nse

of c

omm

on

fate

. Su

perio

r-sub

ordi

nate

re

latio

nshi

ps

Team

w

orkin

g re

latio

nshi

p

Supe

rvis

or

satis

fact

ion

with

pe

rform

ance

, jo

b co

ngru

ence

. ;it

tent

ion

(sup

port

and

cons

ider

atio

n),

and

job

latit

ude

(dis

cret

ion

and

freed

om).

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Stud

v

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontin

ued)

Theo

retic

al

Defin

ition

Subd

imen

sions

Su

bdom

ains

. or

Su

bcon

tent

103.

Du

arte

, G

oods

on,

& Kl

ich

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Tr

ust.

inte

ract

ion,

pa

rticip

atio

n,

supp

ort,

and

rewa

rds.

104.

Fa

irhur

st (1

993)

In

crem

enta

l in

fluen

ce

Trus

t. in

tern

aliza

tion

of

com

mon

go

als,

ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l be

havio

r an

d

105.

Jo

nes,

G

laman

, &

John

son

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

inte

ract

ions

10

6.

Judg

e &

Ferri

s (1

993)

Q

uality

of

ex

chan

ge

107.

Li

den,

W

ayne

, &

Stilw

ell

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

108.

M

urry

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

rewa

rds,

mut

ual

influ

ence

, an

d su

ppor

t. No

ne

disc

usse

d.

None

di

scus

sed.

109.

Ph

illips

, J&

ran,

&

Howe

ll (1

993)

Ex

chan

ge

rela

tions

hip

110.

Sc

ott

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Trus

t, re

spec

t, lik

ing,

an

d re

cipro

cal

influ

ence

.

Loya

lty

and

likin

g,

com

pete

nce.

le

ader

ship

at

tent

ion,

an

d su

perio

r- su

bord

inat

e sa

tisfa

ctio

n.

Cont

ribut

ion,

af

fect

, an

d loy

alty.

Info

rmat

ion

shar

ing,

au

thor

ity

and

auto

nom

y, su

ppor

t, co

ncer

n,

and

trust

. 11

1.

Tann

er,

Dunn

, &

Chon

ko

(199

3)

Exch

ange

re

latio

nshi

p qu

ality

Ex

chan

ge

of

supp

ort,

extra

cont

ract

ual

role

s,

high

qu

ality

co

mm

unica

-

112.

Ta

nsky

(1

993)

Q

uality

of

re

latio

nshi

p

113.

Va

nsud

evan

(1

993)

Q

uality

of

ex

chan

ge

tion,

an

d re

sour

ces.

No

ne

disc

usse

d.

Trus

t, re

spec

t, lik

ing,

se

nse

of c

omm

on

fate

, ex

traco

ntra

ctua

l be

havio

r,

114.

11

5.

116.

11

7.

Vecc

hio

(199

3)

Qua

lity

of

rela

tions

hip

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Q

uality

of

ex

chan

ge

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

and

recip

roca

l in

fluen

ce.

None

di

scus

sed.

W

ayne

&

Gree

n (1

993)

Wilh

elm

, He

rd,

& St

eine

r (1

9Y3)

As

hkan

asy

& O

’Con

nor

(199

4)

Trus

t, in

tera

ctio

n.

supp

ort,

and

form

al/in

form

al

rewa

rds.

Trus

t. su

ppor

t, in

tera

ctio

n,

and

rewa

rds.

Free

dom

, be

tter

job

assig

nmen

ts,

and

grea

ter

oppo

rtuni

ties

to

work

118.

Ba

uer

& Gr

een

(199

4)

119.

Bo

rchg

revin

k &

Bost

er

(199

4)

120.

De

luga

&

Perry

(1

994)

121.

Du

arte

, G

oods

on,

& Kl

ich

(199

4)

122.

Ki

nick

i &

Vecc

hio

(199

4)

123.

Ph

illips

&

Bede

ian

(199

4)

Qua

lity

of

rela

tions

hip

Inte

rper

sona

l ex

chan

ge

rela

tions

hip

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Qua

lity

of

rela

tions

hip

Dyad

ic so

cial

ex

chan

ge

Qua

lity

of

exch

ange

Q

uality

of

ex

chan

ge

with

le

ader

. No

ne

disc

usse

d.

Trus

t, re

spec

t, loy

alty.

likin

g,

supp

ort,

open

ness

, an

d ho

nesty

. Tr

ust,

supp

ort.

inte

rper

sona

l at

tract

ion,

an

d m

utua

l in

fluen

ce.

Trus

t ve

rsus

di

stan

ce.

None

di

scus

sed.

No

ne

disc

usse

d.

None

di

scus

sed.

12

4.

Scan

dura

&

Schr

iesh

eim

(1

994)

-

Stud

y

Tabl

e 1.

(C

~~~~

~~e~

)

Theo

retic

al

Defin

ition

Subd

imen

sions

, Su

bdom

ains

, or

Su

bcon

tent

125.

Sc

ott

& Br

uce

(199

4)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

126.

Ba

su &

Gre

en

(199

5)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

127.

” D

anse

reau

(1

995)

12

8.”

Gra

en

& U

hl-B

ien

(199

5)

Indi

vidu

aliz

ed

lead

ersh

ip

Team

-mak

ing

129.

Ke

ller

& D

anse

reau

(1

995)

13

0.

Kram

er

(199

5)

131.

M

ajor

, Ko

zlow

ski,

Cha

o,

& G

ardn

er

(199

5)

132.

Si

as &

Jab

lin

(199

5)

133.

Ba

uer

& G

reen

(1

996)

134.

Bh

ai

& An

sari

(199

6)

135.

M

asly

n,

Farm

er,

& Fe

dor

(199

6)

136.

G

reen

, An

ders

on,

& Sh

iver

s (1

996)

13

7.*

Scan

dura

&

Lank

au

(199

6)

138.

Se

ttoon

, Be

nnet

t, &

Lide

n (1

996)

.

139.

Th

ibod

eaux

&

Lowe

(1

996)

14

0.

Willi

ams,

G

avin

, &

Willi

ams

(199

6)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of r

elat

ions

hip

Socia

l ex

chan

ge

Exch

ange

pr

oces

s

Exch

ange

Q

ualit

y of

the

rel

atio

nshi

p

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Qua

lity

of t

he r

elat

ions

hip

Non

e gi

ven

Trus

t, m

utua

l lik

ing,

an

d re

spec

t: gr

eate

r au

tono

my

and

deci

sion

la

titud

e.

Loya

lty,

este

em,

trust

, de

sirab

le

assi

gnm

ents

, ra

pid

adva

ncem

ent,

and

frien

dshi

p.

Prov

isio

n of

sel

f-wor

th.

Trus

t, re

spec

t, an

d ob

ligat

ion

spec

ifica

lly l

iste

d as

the

dim

ensi

ons

of

LMX;

un

ders

tand

ing,

co

mm

itmen

t, lo

yahy

. re

cipr

ocal

in

fluen

ce,

and

supp

ort

also

dis

cuss

ed.

Trus

t, vo

lunt

ary

cont

ribut

ion,

lo

yalty

, an

d la

titud

e in

per

form

ing

task

s.

Rec

ipro

cal

influ

ence

an

d tru

st.

Trus

t an

d so

cial

in

tegr

atio

n.

Hig

h qu

ality

re

latio

nshi

ps

char

acte

rized

by

hig

h le

vels

of

trust

. op

en

com

mun

icat

ion,

gr

eate

r ne

gotia

ting

latit

ude,

le

ss d

irect

su

per-

visi

on,

incr

ease

d su

perv

isor

y su

ppor

t, an

d gr

eate

r su

bord

inat

e in

fluen

ce

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing.

H

igh

qual

ity

rela

tions

hips

ch

arac

teriz

ed

by h

igh

leve

ls o

f m

utua

l tru

st

and

resp

ect.

Perc

eive

d co

ntrib

utio

n.

loya

lty (

supp

ort),

an

d af

fect

(lik

ing)

. H

igh

qual

ity

rela

tions

hips

ch

arac

teriz

ed

by h

igh

leve

ls o

f af

fect

. in

form

atio

n,

reso

urce

s, a

nd s

uppo

rt.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

Mut

ual

resp

ect,

trust

. an

d m

utua

l ob

ligat

ion.

~x

traco

ntra

~ual

be

havi

ors.

Non

e di

scus

sed.

N

one

disc

usse

d.

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontin

ued)

Stud

y Th

eore

tical

De

finitio

n

141.

Ba

su &

G

reen

(1

997f

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e 14

2.

Engl

e &

Lord

(1

997)

Q

ualit

y of

exc

hang

e 14

3.*

Spar

rowe

&

Lide

n (1

997)

Ex

chan

ge

144.

W

ayne

, Sh

ore

& Li

den

(199

7)

Socia

l ex

chan

ge

145.

Kl

ein

& Ki

m

(199

8)

Qua

lity

of th

e dy

adic

rel

atio

nshi

p 14

6.

Lide

n &

Mas

lyn

(199

8)

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

147.

Sc

hrie

shei

m,

Nei

der,

Qua

lity

of e

xcha

nge

Subd

imen

sions

, Su

bdom

ains

, or

Su

bcon

tent

2 >

Loya

lty,

supp

ort,

auto

nom

y,

and

influ

ence

. 3

Non

e di

scus

sed.

” 2

Thre

e pr

imar

y di

men

sion

s of

rec

ipro

city

ar

e di

scus

sed:

imm

edia

cy

of

zn’

retu

rns,

eq

uiva

lenc

e of

ret

urns

, an

d de

gree

an

d na

ture

of

the

inte

r- es

t of

eac

h pa

rty i

n th

e ex

chan

ge.

Hig

h qu

ality

re

latio

nshi

ps

char

acte

rized

by

incr

ease

d re

sour

ces,

info

r- m

atio

n,

and

supp

ort.

Influ

ence

, tru

st,

and

resp

ect.

Con

tribu

tion,

lo

yalty

, af

fect

, and

pro

fess

iona

l re

spec

t. Lo

yalty

, af

fect

, and

per

ceiv

ed

cont

ribut

ion.

&

Scan

dura

(1

998)

*The

oret

ical/n

onem

piric

al

work.

no

t in

clude

d in

Tab

le

2.

76 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999

LMX was an exchange relationship based on competence, interpersonal skill, and trust. while Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1976) saw the exchange rela- tionship as being based on attention and sensitivity. Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) later expanded the number of subdimensions, adding support, reward, and satisfac- tion with the leader; additionally, LMX was described as both an exchange pattern and as leader acceptance.

The list of LMX subdimensions was next extended by Graen, Cashman, Gins- burgh, and Schiemann (1977) to include influence and latitude (in addition to the previous five elements); LMX was defined as “linking-pin quality.” A somewhat reduced set of subdimensions was presented by Schiemann (1977) who argued that the LMX subdomain included trust, sensitivity, support, and attention. Graen and Schiemann’s (1978) set of subdimensions was slightly altered, as they added informa- tion as an additional element to the set proposed by Schiemann (1977) (while excluding trust). The variations and evolutionary changes in the theoretical defini- tion of LMX continued into the next decade, with other researchers undertaking LMX research.

Throughout the 1980s Graen and colleagues continued to define LMX as the quality of the exchange between leader and subordinate, while at the same time describing varying subdimensions or subcontent of the construct.

Eighteen additional subdimensions/content subaspects were included in 13 stud- ies by Graen and colleagues during this lo-year span (trust, competence, motivation, assistance and support, understanding, latitude, authority, information, influence in decision making, communications, confidence, consideration, talent, delegation, innovativeness, expertise, control of organizational resources, and mutual control). Even more diverse were the conceptualizations and subcontent employed by other LMX researchers. Of the 37 other dissertations or research papers published or presented during the 1980s quite noteworthy is the use of 11 different theoretical definitions in these works (opportunities for influence/control, leadership attention, noncontractual social exchange, quality of exchange, negotiating latitude, supervi- sory relations, trust in supervisor, leadership interpersonal sensitivity, role making, role latitude, and leadership exchange) as well as 35 different subcontent elements.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that 16 of the articles in this period did not provide either explicit construct definitions or an explication of LMX subcontent. Thus, the makeup of the construct definition across this body of research was expanded substantially (or in some cases not explicitly treated), yet it seems remark- able that a decade after the inception of LMX theory there was still so much disagreement as to the basic definition of the construct as well as no clear or consistent direction provided about where or how to proceed in developing the theory.

It was during this period (the 198Os), and most likely in response to the state of confusion in the field, that several comprehensive reviews of the LMX literature were undertaken. Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found mixed results regarding rela- tionships among LMX and various outcomes (previously reported as positively related to LMX), and called for increased attention to both conceptual and opera- tional definitions of the LMX construct. Dienesch and Liden (1986) also brought attention to the lack of theoretical underpinnings, from both the perspective of

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 77

LMX development as well as the dimensionality of the construct (they proposed a three-dimensional model of LMX-composed of mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty).

Graen and Scandura (1987) provided what appears to be the first systematic and thorough discussion of many facets of the construct since Graen’s (1976) earlier theoretical piece, presenting a three-phase model of LMX development: role-taking, role-making, and role-routinization. They also provided explication of LMX dimen- sionality, outlining two higher order dimensions: quality and coupling. The quality aspect addresses the attitudes present in the exchange relationship (the extent of loyalty, support, and trust between dyad members), while the coupling dimension is more behaviorally oriented (addressing influence, delegation, latitude, and inno- vativeness). Finally, at least one article during this decade provided a clear and detailed definition of the LMX phenomenon:

Leader-member exchange is (a) a system of components and their relationships (b) involving both members of a dyad (c) involving interdependent patterns of behavior and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e) producing conceptions of environments, cause maps, and value (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986, p. 580).

Unfortunately, although a great deal of research on LMX continued into the next decade and focused on understanding some of the underpinnings of the LMX phenomenon, the waters continued to be muddied with little consistency about the basic definition and content of the LMX construct (even in different works by the same authors).

Eighty-two empirical and theoretical works developed during the 1990s are in- cluded in this review (see Table 1). As mentioned above, inconsistency in the subcontent of the construct continued to exist, but the majority of studies showed good consensus on the nature of the phenomenon as being the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate. However, other definitions of the construct were offered, including: latitude or supervisor attention (Yammar- ino & Dubinsky, 1990); social exchange relationships (Deluga & Perry, 1991); maturity of the relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Graen & Wakabayashi, 1992); negotiating latitude (McClane, 1991a, 1991b); incremental influence (Fairh- urst, 1993), and individualized leadership (Dansereau, 1995).

Six content subdomains appear to be predominant in a majority of the studies: mutual support, trust, liking, latitude, attention, and loyalty. Note, however, that there were many studies that proposed additional content subdomains (in addition to the six listed above), as well as some studies that proposed a completely different set of content subdomains (see Table 1 for further details). Most recently, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) reiterated the Graen and Wakabayashi (1992) three-dimensional conceptualization of LMX quality as consisting of three factors (respect, trust, and obligation), such that:

An offer will not be made and accepted without (1) mutual respect for the capabilities of the other, (2) the anticipation of deepening reciprocal trust

78 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19W

with the other, and (3) the expectation that interacting obligation will grow over time as career-oriented social exchanges blossom into a partnership (Graen & Uhl-Bien. 1995. p. 237).

LMX and Levels of Analysis Issues As many in the field of organizational studies have recognized, it is important

to clearly specify the level(s) of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist (cf., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Organizations are comprised of multiple levels (e.g., individuals, dyads, work groups, departments), necessitating that researchers specify where (at what level or levels) their construct of interest is expected to manifest its effects. This is an important first step in investigations of organizational phenomena, as the theoretical specifica- tion can then be used to ensure that measurement and data-analytic techniques correspond to the proposed level of analysis. The level of theory, measurement, and data-analytic technique must be aligned to ensure that obtained results are not misleading or artifacts (Klein et al., 1994).

The level of analysis issue is not a minor or trivial one for LMX research, for one of the noteworthy hallmarks of early VDL theory was its departure from the traditional ALS approach and its clear specification of dyads as its hypothesized level of analysis. In fact, the VDL model was initially formulated to treat leadership as occurring at the dyadic level of analysis, where a dyad consists of the leader and one subordinate. The VDL model was premised on the fact that leaders differentiate between subordinates in their work groups, rather than use the same leadership style with all subordinates (at the time the VDL model was first formulated, the ALS model was the dominant leadership approach; cf., Kerr. Schriesheim, Mur- phy, & Stogdill, 1974). Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that early LMX theorists forcefully argued that “leadership can occur only in the vertical [leader-subordinate] dyad” (Dansereau et al., 1975, p. 76). that for leadership research “the appropriate level of analysis is not the work group. . . but the vertical dyad” (Graen & Cashman, 1975, p, 150) and that VDL theory “views the particular relationships between the leader and each of his individual members as the basic unit of analysis” for leadership research (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen 1973, p. 187) (see similar statements by Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972b, p. 265).

While the majority of recent LMX research still assumes that LMX is predicated on the existence of a leader differentiating among subordinates within his/her work group, the most recent work by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) makes a remarkable departure from previous LMX research by describing LMX as strictly a relational concept and by asserting that the leader and follower within the context of the work unit are no longer of principal interest in LMX theory-the relationship is now seen as the main focus. This modification distinguishes the most recent work of Graen and colleagues from the VDL model, and Dansereau et al. (1995a) have criticized this recent perspective as being unclear with regard to levels of analysis. Because the relationship is the primary focus (and the individual followers and leaders no longer appear to be of interest), Dansereau et al. (1995a) suggest that the current conceptualization allows any level of analysis as appropriate as long as the relationship remains the focus. Thus, further theoretical development seems

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 79

needed with respect to the appropriate level(s) of analysis for conducting future LMX research.

Dansereau and colleagues have also distanced themselves from the LMX ap- proach, as they have recently proposed an alternative conceptualization of leader- ship relationships (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau et al., 1995b). Dansereau’s ap- proach, called “Individualized Leadership” (IL), focuses on dyadic relationships outside of any collective context, and is different from both the ALS and VDLi LMX perspectives on leadership. Dansereau (1995) proffers that the VDL model differs substantially from the LMX model (as conceptualized by Graen and col- leagues) in that the VDL model asserts that leaders form in-groups and out-groups (within their work units), and that the VDL can co-exist with the ALS approach (i.e., both ALS and VDL effects may operate simultaneously). He argues that the LMX model assumes that “different relationships must occur within supervisory work groups,” thus replacing the ALS approach as opposed to complementing it (Dansereau, 1995, p. 482). Dansereau’s IL model proposes that both individuals involved in the dyad are considered distinct from their respective others (i.e., each follower is independent of other followers, and each leader is viewed as unique). However, a linkage still exists between each leader and follower (while the dyad remains independent of other dyads).

Summary In summary, and as documented in Table 1, LMX was initially conceptualized

quite broadly, as being comprised of the amount of interpersonal attraction between a leader and a member and the degree of loyalty that existed between a leader and a member (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) as well as attention, support, and sensitivity (Dansereau et al., 1975). However, Cummings (1975), in commenting on Graen and Cashman’s (1975) explication of the approach, con- tended that the theory’s constructs were vague and ambiguous. Perhaps in response to this criticism, multiple iterations of LMX definitions have since followed. These have been confusing and sometimes appear to be contradictory but, more impor- tantly, they have appeared with little or no discussion provided as to why the theory has evolved and why particular changes in the LMX construct have been offered.

While early VDL theory can be said to have evolved along two separate branches of thinking (LMX and IL), differences among the three approaches are often not clearly represented by persons doing research in this domain. However, we believe that these three approaches may be differentiated largely as follows. The VDL approach has employed negotiating latitude as its key variable and has focused on differentiated dyads in groups as its level of analysis. The LMX approach has used measures of leader-member exchange as its central variable and left the level of analysis open or unspecified (despite using the terms “dyad” and “dyadic,” LMX theory and research has typically been unclear as to whether dyads in groups, dyads independent of groups, or some other level of analysis is involved). Finally, the 1L model has employed self-worth, satisfaction, and performance as its main focus and has used whole dyads (independent of groups) as its level of analysis (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau et al., 1995a, 1995b).

Although some LMX researchers have attempted to respond to criticisms raised

80 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. IO No. 1 1999

about the theory, future theoretical treatments need to include better explanations and justifications for changes which are proposed. Additionally, it would be quite useful if future work linked current conceptualizations to the previous ones from which they derived. [As an illustration, Dansereau’s (1995) treatment of the evolu- tion of the IL approach did an exemplary job of this.] Finally, levels-of-analysis issues must be specifically addressed in future theoretical treatments. The level(s)- of-analysis at which LMX phenomena are expected to hold must be clearly specified and theoretical justification for the proposed level(s) must be offered. Otherwise, criticisms that the theory is vague (Cummings, 1975) and that it suffers from “. . . a lack of specificity” and “. . . needs substantial clarification” (Dansereau et al., 1995a, p. 108) will continue to detract from the value and contribution of this approach to the study of leadership phenomena.

Measurement of leader-Member Exchange

Measures of high psychometric quality are necessary in all fields of research so that the state of knowledge can advance (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Unfortu- nately, however, within the fields of management (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993) and organizational behavior (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Stone-Romero, 1994) sufficient attention has not generally been directed toward measurement development and validation, perhaps because substantive research tends to be emphasized over meth- odologically oriented research (Schwab, 1980).

This general lack of attention to measurement issues is also evident in the leadership domain (Barge & Schlueter, 1991; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977b). Specifi- cally speaking about psychometric adequacy in leadership research, Korman (1974, p. 194) noted that, “The point is not that accurate measurement is ‘nice.’ It is necessary, crucial, etc. Without it we have nothing.” To obtain “accurate measure- ment,” the principles of scale development outlined by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) as well as others (e.g., Hinkin, 1995) should be followed. First and foremost, a clear definition of the theoretical content domain and any subdomains is needed. From this definition, items can then be developed which assess the domain. A systematic program of study should then begin, in an effort to assess the psychomet- ric properties of the scale and its construct validity. Any changes in a scale should then be accompanied by both theoretical justification and psychometric evidence related to the effects of such changes.

Evolution of LMX Measures The LMX construct has been operationalized with many different measures, and

the various LMX scales have ranged from two to 25 items (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Weitzel & Graen, 1989). Table 2 presents a detailed summary of the leadership measures that were used in the empirical studies presented in Table 1 and discussed above.

As shown in Table 2, the initial investigations of LMX by Graen, Dansereau, and Minami (1972a, 1972b), Dansereau, Cashman, and Graen (1973), and Graen, Dansereau, Minami, and Cashman (1973a) used 40 Consideration and Initiating

Stud

y

Tabl

e 2.

su

mm

ary

of

Mea

sure

s U

sed

and

Ana

lytic

M

etho

dolo

gy

Em

ploy

ed

in E

mpi

rica

LMX

Stud

ies,

19

72-1

998

Repo

rted

Mea

sure

Us

ed”

Anal

ytic

Met

hod

1. G

raen

, D

anse

reau

, &

Min

ami

LBD

Q

(Con

sider

atio

n an

d In

itiat

ing

Stru

ctur

e su

bsca

les)

(40

ite

ms)

(1

972a

) (S

togd

ill &

Coo

ns,

1957

) 2.

Gra

en,

Dan

sere

au,

& M

inam

i (1

97’2

b)

LBD

Q

(Con

sider

atio

n an

d In

itiat

ing

Stru

ctur

e su

bsca

ies)

(40

ite

ms)

(S

togd

ill &

Coo

ns,

1957

); R

ole

Orie

ntat

ion

Inde

x (D

omin

ance

an

d C

ompe

tenc

e su

bsca

les)

(11

ite

ms)

(G

raen

, D

anse

reau

, &

Min

ami,

1972

a);

2 Le

ader

-mem

ber

influ

ence

sc

ales

(nu

mbe

r of

ite

ms

not

repo

rted)

(n

ew

scal

e: T

anne

nbau

m,

1968

) LB

DQ

(C

onsid

erat

ion

and

Initi

atin

g St

ruct

ure

subs

cale

s) (

40 i

tem

s)

(Sto

gdill

& C

oons

, 19

57)

3. D

anse

reau

, C

ashm

an,

& G

raen

(1

973)

4.

Gra

en,

Dan

sere

au,

Min

ami,

& C

ashm

an

(197

3a)

5. G

raen

, O

rris.

&

John

son

(197

3b)

6. H

aga,

Gra

en,

& D

anse

reau

(1

974)

7.

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

(197

5)

8. G

raen

&

Cas

hman

(1

975)

10.

Cas

hman

, D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

976)

LBD

Q

(Con

sider

atio

n an

d In

itiat

ing

Stru

ctur

e su

bsca

les)

(40

ite

ms)

(F

leis

hman

, 19

57; F

leis

hman

, H

arris

, &

Burtt

, 19

55)

plus

20

othe

r ne

w ite

ms

8-fa

cet

Supe

rvis

ory

Atte

ntio

n sc

ale

(sou

rce

of s

cale

and

num

ber

of

item

s no

t re

porte

d;

cont

ent

area

s ap

pear

si

mila

r to

Sup

ervi

sory

Tr

eatm

ent

Scaf

e [H

aga,

Gra

en.

& D

anse

reau

, 19

741)

Su

perv

isor

y Tr

eatm

ent

(8 it

ems)

(n

ew

scal

e; it

em c

onte

nt

sim

ilar

to

Lead

ersh

ip

Atte

ntio

n sc

ale

[Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

19

751)

N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (2

ite

ms)

; Le

ader

ship

At

tent

ion

(8 f

acet

s) a

nd

Lead

ersh

ip

Supp

ort

(12

face

ts) t

o m

easu

re l

eade

r an

d m

embe

r co

n-

tribu

tion

(new

sca

les

bul

cont

ent

of L

eade

rshi

p At

tent

ion

is s

imila

r to

Sup

ervi

sory

Tre

atm

ent

scal

e [H

aga,

Gra

en,

& D

anse

reau

, 19

741)

N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (4

item

s) (

sour

ce o

f sca

le n

ot r

epor

ted,

bu

t re

fer-

ence

d H

aga,

Gra

en,

& D

anse

reau

[1

974]

. D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a [1

975]

, an

d G

raen

11

9761

for

deta

ils;

item

s no

t lis

ted)

Su

perio

r N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (2

item

s) (

Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

19

75);

Supe

rior

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

(3

ite

ms)

(it

ems

and

sour

ce o

f sc

ale

not

repo

rted)

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

): C

orre

latio

ns;

t-tes

ts.

Raw

Scor

es (

tr~ch

otom

ized

): C

orre

latio

ns:

MAN

OVA

.

Raw

Scor

es;

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

.

Raw

Scor

es: C

orre

latio

ns.

Raw

Scor

es;

MAN

OVA

.

Raw

Scor

es: M

eans

: t-t

ests

.

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

; C

orre

latio

ns.

Raw

Scor

es; A

NO

VA.

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

11.

Gra

en

& G

insb

urgh

(1

977)

Le

ader

at

tent

ion

to n

eeds

, Le

ader

’s di

vulg

ing

job

info

rmat

ion,

Le

ad-

er’s

sup

port

(con

tent

of

thes

e 3

is s

imila

r to

Sup

ervi

sory

Tr

eatm

ent

scal

e [H

aga,

Gra

en,

& D

anse

reau

, 19

741)

Le

ader

’s pe

rson

al

sens

i- tiv

ity,

Lead

er’s

allo

wan

ce

for

self

dete

rmin

atio

n (n

umbe

r of

item

s an

d so

urce

of

scal

es n

ot r

epor

ted)

; Le

ader

ac

cept

ance

(2

ite

ms)

(n

ew

scal

e; s

imila

r to

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

scal

e of

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

[197

5])

12.

Gra

en,

Cas

hman

, G

insb

urgh

, &

Schi

eman

n (1

977)

13.

Schi

eman

n (1

977)

Lead

er-b

oss

Link

ing

Pin

Qua

lity

(4 i

tem

s)

(sou

rce

of s

cale

not

rc-

po

rted)

; Le

ader

- an

d m

embe

r-rep

orte

d La

titud

e an

d Su

ppor

t (n

um-

ber

of it

ems

and

sour

ce o

f sc

ales

not

rep

orte

d)

Lead

er

Beha

vior

In

dex

(Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

19

75);

Dya

dic

Exch

ange

sc

ale

(Gra

en

& C

ashm

an,

1975

)

14.

Gra

en

& Sc

hiem

ann

(197

8)

15. J

ames

, G

ent,

Hat

er,

& C

oray

(1

979)

LMX

(4 i

tem

s)

(new

sc

ale:

refe

renc

ed

Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en.

& H

aga

1197

51 a

nd G

raen

&

Cas

hman

[1

975]

) 3

item

s ba

sed

on d

iscu

ssio

n in

Hou

se &

Mitc

hell

(197

4) a

nd D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

975)

16

. Li

den

& G

raen

(1

980)

17.

Schr

iesh

eim

(1

980)

18.

Jam

es. H

ater

, &

Jone

s (1

981)

19.

Kate

rber

g &

Hor

n (1

981)

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

~ego

tiatin

g La

titud

e (4

ite

ms)

(s

ame

item

s as

in

Gra

en

& Sc

hiem

ann

1197

81)

Initi

atin

g St

ruct

ure

and

Con

sider

atio

n (1

0 ite

ms

each

) m

odifi

ed

from

th

e LB

DQ

-XII

(Sto

gdill,

19

63)

Influ

ence

O

ppor

tuni

ty

(3 it

ems)

an

d C

ontro

l (5

ite

ms)

ba

sed

on

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

(197

5)

LBD

Q

(Con

sider

atio

n an

d In

itiat

ing

Stru

ctur

e su

bsca

les)

(St

ogdi

ll, 19

63)

20.

Wak

abay

ashi

. M

inam

i, Ve

rtica

l Ex

chan

ge

(12

item

s)

(new

sc

ale;

ref

eren

ced

Gra

en

Has

him

oto,

Sa

ne,

Gra

en.

& C

ashm

an

[197

5])

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

: M

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

; AN

OVA

Raw

Scor

es: C

orre

latio

ns:

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n:

MAN

OVA

s (d

yadi

c ex

chan

ge s

core

s tri

-

chot

omiz

ed).

Raw

Scor

es; P

rofil

e Si

mila

rity:

Pa

ttern

Ag

reem

ent.

Raw

Scor

es:

Stan

dard

D

ev.;

Cor

rela

tions

: Su

bgro

up

Mod

erat

or

Anal

ysis

. Ra

w Sc

ores

(tri

chot

omiz

ed);

MAN

OVA

.

Raw

Scor

es:

Subg

roup

M

oder

ator

An

alys

is:

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es: P

aral

lelis

m

of R

egre

ssio

n:

Plan

ned

Com

paris

ons.

LM

X sc

ores

par

titio

ned

into

w

ithin

an

d be

twee

n va

rianc

e us

ing

regr

essi

on:

raw

scor

es u

sed

for

othe

r va

riabl

es.

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

); AN

OVA

.

& N

ovak

(1

981)

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

stw

iy

- 21

. D

anse

reau

. Al

utto

. M

arkh

am,

& D

umas

(1

982)

22

. G

raen

. Li

den,

&

Hoe

l (lY

X2a)

23.

Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

er-

kam

p (1

982b

) 24

. Ki

m

& O

rgan

(1

982)

25

. G

reen

, Bl

ank,

&

Lide

n (1

983)

26.

Nac

hman

, D

anse

reau

, &

Nau

ghto

n (1

983)

27

. R

osse

& K

raut

(1

983)

28

. C

hass

ie (

1984

)

29.

Fuka

mi

& La

rson

(1

984)

LM

X (3

ite

ms)

ada

pted

fro

m

Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en.

& H

aga

(197

5)

30.

Nov

ak (

1984

) 31

. Sc

andu

ra

81 G

raen

(1

984)

32.

Seer

s &

Gra

en

(19X

4)

33.

Snyd

er,

Willi

ams,

&

Cas

hman

(1

9X4)

34

. Ve

cchi

o &

Gob

del

(198

4)

35.

Wak

ahay

ashi

&

Gra

en

(19X

4)

Repo

rted

Mea

srrrr

Use&

Lead

ersh

ip

Atte

ntio

n (1

1 ite

ms)

(D

anse

reau

, G

raen

. &

Hag

a,

1975

)

Amlvi

is M

ethod

With

in

and

Betw

een

Anal

ysis

(W

ABA)

.

LMX

(5 i

tem

s)

(4 i

tem

s si

mila

r to

Gra

en

Ot S

chie

man

n [lY

78];

1 ne

w ite

m)

LMX-

7 (n

ew

scal

e; re

fere

nced

G

raen

&

Cas

hman

(1

9751

and

Lid

en

& G

raen

[1

980]

; ite

ms

not

prov

ided

) N

on-C

ontra

ctua

l So

cial

Exch

ange

(1

5 ite

ms)

(n

ew

scal

e)

LMX

(10

item

s),

som

e of

whi

ch

were

ad

apte

d fro

m

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en.

& H

aga

(197

5);

Dya

dic

Con

tribu

tion

(4 it

ems)

(n

ew

scal

e)

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

(2 i

tem

s)

(Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga.

19

75)

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

(4 i

tem

s)

(new

sc

ale)

LM

X (4

ite

ms)

(G

raen

&

Schi

eman

n.

1978

)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

LMX-

7 (n

ew

scal

e, 7

-item

sc

ale

also

rep

orte

d to

be

used

in

Gra

en.

Nov

ak.

& So

mm

erka

mp

[lY%

b])

I,ead

ersh

ip

Exch

ange

m

easu

res

repo

rtedl

y fro

m D

anse

reau

. G

raen

. &

Hag

a (1

975)

. G

racn

&

Cas

hman

(19

75).

and

Gra

en

(197

6) (

num

- be

r of

item

s no

t re

porte

d)

VDL

(4 it

ems)

(C

ashm

an.

1976

)

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

(4 i

tem

s)

(sou

rce

of s

cale

not

rep

ortc

dk

In/o

ut

stat

us (

1 ite

m)

(new

sc

ale)

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

(1

2 ite

ms)

(n

ew s

cale

bas

ed o

n G

raen

C

u C’a

shm

an

jiY75

] an

d C

ashm

an.

Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en

& H

aga

j197

hJ)

Dev

iatio

n Sc

ores

cor

rela

ted

with

tu

rnov

er.

Raw

Scor

es;

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es;

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

; C

anon

ical

Cor

rela

tions

; Pa

rt-ca

noni

cal

anal

ysis

. Ra

w Sc

ores

and

bet

wee

n an

d w

ithin

sc

ores

for

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude:

W

ABA.

Ra

w Sc

ores

: C

orre

latio

ns.

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

); C

orre

latio

ns:

Logi

stic

R

egre

ssio

n;

t-tes

ts; P

ath

Anal

ysis

. Ra

w Sc

ores

: C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

): M

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es:

Mut

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

: M

uh.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

(tri

chot

omiz

ed);

Also

var

ianc

e pa

rtitio

ned

as in

Kat

erbe

rg

& H

orn

(198

1).

Raw

Scor

es:

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

stun

v

Tabl

e 2.

(C

~~~~

~~e~

)

Repo

rted

Mea

sure

Us

e&

Anal

ytic

Met

hod

36.

Ferri

s (1

985)

LM

X (5

ite

ms)

(G

raen

, Li

den,

&

Noe

l. 19

82~1

)

37.

Lide

n (1

985)

LM

X an

d Le

ader

ship

In

terp

erso

nal

Sens

itivi

ty (

7 ite

ms)

ada

pted

fro

m

Gra

en

& C

ashm

an

(197

5),

and

Lide

n &

Gra

en

(198

0)

VDL

(4 it

ems)

(C

ashm

an,

1976

) N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (4

ite

ms)

(so

urce

of

sca

le n

ot r

epor

ted)

38

. Sn

yder

&

Brun

ing

(198

5)

39.

Vecc

hio

(198

5)

41.

Duc

hon,

G

reen

. &

Tabe

r (1

9886

)

42.

Scan

dura

, G

raen

, &

Nov

ak

(198

6)

43.

Vecc

hio,

G

riffe

th,

& N

om

(198

6)

44.

Die

nesc

h (1

987)

45.

Fairh

urst

, R

oger

s, &

Sa

ar

( 198

7)

46.

Gas

t (1

987)

47.

Laga

ce

(198

7)

5-ite

m

scal

e ad

apte

d fro

m 4

-item

N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e sc

ale

(use

d in

G

raen

&

Cas

hman

[1

975]

): al

so u

sed

nom

inat

ions

of

bes

t an

d w

orst

w

orkin

g re

latio

nshi

ps

LMX-

7 (G

raen

, N

ovak

, &

Som

mer

kam

p,

1982

b; S

cand

ura

62 G

raen

, 19

84)

LMX

(5 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en.

Lide

n,

&, H

oe],

1982

a)

4-ite

m

LMX

scal

e (d

escr

ibed

as

typ

ical

of

prev

ious

LM

X m

easu

res)

; At

tribu

tion/

Expe

ctat

ion

(15

item

s)(D

iene

sch,

19

86);

Beha

vior

al

Inci

dent

sc

ale

(9 i

tem

s)(D

iene

sch,

19

86);

a sin

gle

item

to

asse

ss th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n se

lf an

d ot

her

dyad

mem

ber;

3 be

havi

orai

in

di-

cato

rs o

f LM

X 7

item

s ad

apte

d fro

m N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e sc

ale

(Gra

en

& C

ashm

an.

1975

and

Lid

en

& G

raen

, 19

80);

Rel

atio

nal

codi

ng

sche

me

(Rog

ers

& Fa

race

, 19

75)

LMX

asse

ssed

with

5

scal

es fr

om N

ovak

& G

raen

’s (1

982)

M

anag

er-

Empl

oyee

Q

uest

ionn

aire

: 8-

item

LM

X (N

ovak

. 19

85);

Trus

t (3

ite

ms;

Rob

erts

&

Q’R

eilly

[3

974]

and

Nov

ak

[198

2]);

Avai

labi

lity

(Nov

ak,

1982

); As

sist

ance

with

unc

erta

inty

(N

ovak

, 19

82);

Parli

cipa-

lio

n (N

ovak

, 19

82)

7 ite

ms

deve

lope

d by

Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

and

Som

mer

kam

p (1

982b

)

Dev

iatio

n Sc

ores

for

LM

X:

Raw

Scor

es f

or

othe

r va

riabl

es:

WAB

A.

Raw

Scor

es; t

-test

s.

Raw

Scor

es: M

utt.

Reg

ress

ion.

Av

erag

e an

d D

evia

tion

Scor

es u

sed

for

LMX;

Ra

w Sc

ores

for

oth

er

varia

bles

: C

orre

latio

ns:

Hit

Rat

e An

alys

is.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns.

Raw

Scor

es;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

): Pa

rtial

C

orrr-

la

tions

. Ra

w Sc

ores

: Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n;

Hie

rarc

hica

l R

egre

ssio

n (a

ggre

gate

d va

lues

for

st

ep 1

, ind

ivid

ual

valu

es f

or s

tep

2).

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

Stru

ctur

al

Equa

- tio

ns M

odel

ing

(SEM

).

Raw

Scor

es: C

orre

latio

ns:

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

---~.

(L

~ilrr

LMre

il,

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Stud

y R

epor

ted

Mea

sure

U

sed”

49.

Nov

ak &

G

raen

(1

987)

50.

Vecc

hio

(198

7)

51.

Blau

(1

988)

52.

K’O

bony

o (1

988)

53.

Lean

a (1

988)

54.

Peck

(1

988)

55.

Scan

dura

(1

988)

56.

Sidh

u (1

988)

57.

Stei

ner

(198

8)

58.

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, G

raen

, &

Gra

en

(198

8)

59.

Fairh

urst

&

Cha

ndle

r (1

989)

LMX-

7 (G

raen

, N

ovak

, 6;

r Som

mer

kam

p,

1982

b: S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Am

afyt

ic M

ehod

Raw

Scor

es;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

60.

Hen

eman

, G

reen

berg

er,

& An

onyu

o (1

989)

LMX

(4 i

tem

s) (

Lide

n &

Gra

en,

1980

)

Qua

lity

of R

elat

ions

hip

(3 i

tem

s)

(new

sc

ale;

bas

ed o

n D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a [1

975]

) 15

item

s fro

m t

he 1

7-ite

m

LMX

scal

e of

Gra

en

(198

5)

LMX

(9 i

tem

s} b

ased

on

disc

ussi

on

in L

iden

&

Gra

en

(198

0)

7-ite

m L

MX

scal

e (G

raen

ci

ted

as au

thor

on

que

stio

nnai

re

in a

ppen

dix;

ite

ms

are

iden

tical

to

tho

se r

epor

ted

in S

cand

ura

& Gr

aen

[198

4],

with

m

inor

wo

rd

chan

ges)

LM

X-7

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

f7-it

em

scal

e (re

fere

nced

G

raen

an

d as

soci

ates

)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

(1

2 ite

ms)

(ne

w sc

ale

base

d on

Gra

en

& C

ashm

an

1197

51 a

nd C

ashm

an,

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

1197

67; it

em c

on-

tent

app

ears

si

mila

r to

Wak

abay

ashi

&

Gra

en

1198

41)

7 ite

ms

adap

ted

from

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

scal

e (G

raen

&

Cas

hman

, 19

75 a

nd L

iden

&

Gra

en,

1980

); C

onve

rsat

iona

l an

alys

is o

f con

flict

si

tuat

ion

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

res-

si

on;

ANO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es;

ANO

VA;

Hie

rarc

hica

l R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

LMX

scor

es tr

icho

tom

ized

fo

r vi

sual

in

spec

tion;

Ra

w Sc

ores

use

d fo

r C

orre

la-

tions

an

d AN

OVA

s.

Raw

scor

es;

Sim

ple

and

Hie

rarc

hica

l R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

scor

es;

Hie

rarc

hica

l R

egre

ssio

n;

Cor

rela

tions

; C

anon

ical

Cor

rela

tion:

SE

M.

Raw

Scor

es; A

NO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es

(tric

hoto

miz

ed);

Con

vers

a-

tion

anal

ysis

.

Nom

inat

ions

of

bes

t an

d wo

rst

rela

tions

hips

Ra

w Sc

ores

; AN

OVA

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Stud

y Re

porte

d M

easu

re

Used

” An

alyt

ic M

etho

d

61.

Kozlo

wsk

i &

Doh

erty

(1

989)

62.

Seer

s (1

989)

63.

Wak

abay

ashi

&

Gra

en

(198

9)

64.

65.

66.

67.

Wei

tzel

&

Gra

en

(198

9)

Zale

sny

& Ki

rsch

(1

989)

Dob

bins

, C

ardy

, &

Plat

z-Vi

eno

(199

0)

Doc

kery

&

Stei

ner

(199

0)

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

Gra

en,

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, &

Gra

en

(199

0)

Laga

ce

(199

0)

Nys

trom

(1

9~)

Tann

er

& C

astle

berry

(1

990)

Turb

an,

Jone

s. &

Roz

elle

(1

990)

W

hi-B

ien,

Ti

erne

y,

Gra

en.

2 m

easu

res

of n

egot

iatin

g la

titud

e:

7-ite

m

LMX

scal

e (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

and

Mea

sure

of

Inf

orm

atio

n Ex

chan

ge

(13

item

s de

velo

ped

for

stud

y)

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion;

D

icho

to-

mize

d LM

X an

d Bo

x M

tes

t fo

r ho

mog

e-

neity

of

varia

nce:

M

ANQ

VA

and

ANO

VA.

Team

M

embe

r Ex

chan

ge

(10

item

s) (

new

scal

e);

som

e ite

ms

adap

ted

from

Se

ers

& G

raen

(1

984)

; LM

X (7

item

s)

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

~erk

amp,

19

82b)

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

: M

u&.

Reg

ress

ion;

AN

CG

VA.

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

(n

umbe

r of

item

s no

t re

porte

d in

stu

dy 1

; 14

item

s us

ed i

n st

udy

2) (

new

scal

e; b

ased

on

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

[197

6];

cont

ent

area

s si

mila

r to

Wak

abay

ashi

&

Gra

en

[198

4])

Qua

lity

of t

he W

orkin

g R

elat

ions

hip

(25

item

s fro

m

Gra

en

& Sc

an-

dura

[1

985]

, in

cludi

ng

LMX-

7 ite

ms

[Gra

en

& Sc

andu

ra,

1984

1)

LMX

(6 it

ems)

de

velo

ped

by D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

975)

and

G

raen

&

Schi

eman

n (1

978)

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es;

Mut

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; Si

mila

rity

Indi

ces.

N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (2

item

s)

(Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

19

75)

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

LM

X (1

6 ite

ms)

ada

pted

fro

m 1

7-ite

m L

MX

scal

e (G

raen

&

Scan

dura

, 19

85)

for

supe

rvis

ors;

LM

X (1

2 ite

ms)

ad

apte

d fro

m 1

7-ite

m

LMX

scal

e (G

raen

&

Scan

dura

. 19

85)

for

subo

rdin

ates

LM

X (1

2 ite

ms)

ba

sed

on G

raen

&

Cas

hman

(1

975)

an

d C

ashm

an.

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga

(197

6)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

6% G

raen

, 19

84)

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

Q

ualit

y (5

ite

ms)

(G

raen

, Li

den,

&

Hoe

], 19

82a)

LM

X (1

7 ite

ms)

(G

raen

, 19

85):

LMX

(4 it

ems)

(G

raen

&

Schi

eman

n.

1978

); LM

X (4

ite

ms)

(R

osse

& K

raut

, 19

83);

LMX

(1 i

tem

) (V

ecch

io

& G

obde

l, 19

84)

Dev

iatio

n sc

ores

for

LM

X;

Raw

scor

es f

or

othe

r va

riabl

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; M

uft.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

; M

ANG

VA

Raw

Scor

es;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized

in s

tudy

1 a

nd

trich

otom

~ed

in s

tudy

2);

Cor

rela

tions

: AN

OVA

. LM

X (4

ite

ms)

ad

apte

d fro

m

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

. 19

84)

Raw

Scor

es: M

ANO

VA.

LMX

(14

item

s) (

Gra

en

& Sc

andu

ra

1198

71 re

fere

nced

as

sou

rce)

Ra

w Sc

ores

; C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. &

Wak

abay

ashi

(1

990)

R

egre

ssio

n.

Stud

y

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Repo

rted

Mea

sure

Us

ed“

Anal

ytic

Met

hod

iT

.f 74

. W

akab

ayas

hi,

Gra

en,

& U

hl-B

ien

(199

0)

75.

Way

ne &

Fer

ris

(199

0)

76.

Yam

mar

ino

& D

ubiis

ky

Verti

cal

Exch

ange

(1

4 ite

ms)

(W

akab

ayas

hi,

Gra

en,

Gra

en,

& G

raen

, 19

88)

ww

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Supe

rvis

or

Atte

ntio

n (9

dim

.);

Latit

ude

(4 it

ems)

(D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Haga

, 19

75)

77.

Basu

(1

991)

LM

X (5

item

s) m

odifi

ed

from

Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp

(198

2b)

and

Seer

s &

Gra

en

(198

4)

78.

Del

uga

& Pe

rry (

1991

) 6

item

s of

17-

item

LM

X sc

ale

(Gra

en

& Sc

andu

ra,

1985

) 80

. Kr

one

(199

1)

LMX

(5 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oel,

1982

a)

81.

McC

lane

(1

991a

) N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (4

ite

ms)

ad

apte

d fro

n Li

den

& G

raen

(1

980)

82.

McC

lane

(1

991b

) 83

. Sa

lzman

n &

Gra

sha

(199

1)

84.

Step

ina,

Pe

mew

e,

Has

sell,

H

arris

, &

May

field

(1

991)

85

. U

hl-B

ien

(199

1)

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

(4 i

tem

s) a

dapt

ed

from

Lid

en

& G

raen

(1

980)

LM

X sc

ale

(5 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oel,

1982

a)

LMX

(4 it

ems)

(G

raen

&

Cas

hman

, 19

75)

86.

Wal

dron

(1

991)

LMX

(14

item

s)

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b

and

Wak

abay

ashi

, G

raen

, G

raen

, &

Gra

en,

1988

) LM

X (5

item

s)

(Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oel,

1982

a)

87.

Baug

h (1

992)

88.

Car

neva

le

& W

echs

ler

(199

2)

LMX

(14

item

s) (

Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

197

5; G

raen

&

Cas

hman

, 19

75;

Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

LM

X (5

ite

ms)

ada

pted

fro

m D

anse

reau

, C

ashm

an,

& G

raen

(1

973)

89.

Day

&

Cra

m

(199

2)

LMX-

7 fo

r su

bord

inat

es

(Sca

ndur

a &

Gra

en,

1984

); LM

X (3

item

s}

for

supe

rvis

ors

(new

sc

ale)

90

. D

elug

a (1

992)

91

. D

uneg

an,

Duc

hon,

&

Uhl

-Bie

n (1

992)

LMX

(17

item

s)

(Gra

en

& Sc

andu

ra,

1985

) S-

item

sca

le a

dapt

ed

from

4-it

em

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

(use

d in

G

raen

&

Cas

hman

[19

75J)

: als

o us

ed n

omin

atio

ns

of b

est

and

wor

st

wor

king

rela

tions

hips

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

s-

;‘;

sion

; Pa

th A

naly

sis.

3

Raw

Scor

es: S

EM.

3

WAB

A.

E 5 3 Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n;

Logi

stic

3

Reg

ress

ion.

.-

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

s a

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

; AN

OVA

. >

Raw

Scor

es”;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

2 Re

gres

sion.

-5

Ra

w Sc

ore@

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

-. lm

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

MAN

OVA

.

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

): C

orre

latio

ns;

MAN

OVA

. Ra

w Sc

ores

; Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

res-

si

on;

WAB

A.

Raw

Scor

es;

Fact

or A

naly

sis;

C

orre

latio

ns:

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Stud

y

92.

Dun

egan

, Ti

erne

y,

& D

ucho

n (1

992)

93

. G

erra

s (1

992)

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Repo

rted

Mea

sure

Us

ed”

h-ite

m

scal

e KI

anse

reau

. G

racn

. &

Haa

a. 1

97.5

: Duc

hon,

G

reen

, &

Tabe

r, 19

86; G

raen

&

Cas

hman

, 19

%; &

andu

ra

& G

raen

, 19

&1)

24 it

ems

deve

lope

d,

desig

ned

to m

easu

re D

iene

sch

& Li

den’

s (1

986)

di

men

sion

s

Anal

ytic

Met

hod

Raw

Scor

es:

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ANO

VA:

7-ite

m

LMX

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b;

Sca

ndur

a &

Gra

en,

1984

)

Hie

rarc

hica

l R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion;

H

iera

rch-

ic

al R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; R

egre

ssio

n;

Dich

otom

ized

LMX

scor

es, r

-test

s.

WAB

A;

Raw

scor

e AN

OVA

.

94.

Ges

sner

(19

92)

96.

Mar

kham

, P

/furr

y, &

Sc

ott

ww

97.

Schr

iesh

eim

, N

eide

r, Sc

an-

dura

, &

Tepp

er

(199

2a)

98 S

chrie

shei

m,

Scan

dura

, Ei

senb

ach,

&

Nei

der

(199

2b)

99.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

Tier

ney

(199

2)

Yam

mar

ino

& D

ubin

sky

WQ

)

Baug

h,

Gra

en,

& Pa

ge (

1993

)

Dua

rte,

Goo

dson

, &

Klic

h (1

993)

Fa

irhur

st

(199

3)

Jone

s, G

lam

an,

& Jo

hnso

n (1

993)

Ju

dge

& Fe

rris

(199

3)

4-ite

m

scal

e ad

apte

d fro

m

D-it

em

Lead

ersh

ip

Atte

ntio

n sc

ale

(Dan

sere

au,

Alut

to,

& Ya

mm

arin

o,

1984

) LM

X (6

ite

ms)

(n

ew

scal

e)

Raw

Scor

es; S

EM:

Cor

rela

tions

.

LMX

(6 i

tem

s)

(S~h

~esh

eim

, N

eide

r, Sc

andu

ra.

& Te

pper

, 19

92af

Ra

w Sc

ores

; SEM

; C

orre

latio

ns.

LMX

(14

item

s)

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

D

evia

tion

Scor

es f

or L

MX;

Ra

w Sc

ores

for

ot

her

varia

bles

; C

orre

latio

ns:

Mui

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

WAB

A.

Lead

ersh

ip

Atte

ntio

n,

Job

Latit

ude

(Dan

sere

au,

Gra

en,

& H

aga,

197

5)

(num

ber

of it

ems

not

repo

rted}

; Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

Perfo

rman

ce

(1 it

em)

(Dan

sere

au,

Alut

to,

Mar

kham

, &

Dum

as,

1982

); Jo

b C

on-

grue

nce

(1 i

tem

) (D

anse

reau

, Al

utto

, M

arkh

am,

& D

umas

, 19

82)

Cen

troid

ite

m f

rom

14

-item

LM

X sc

ale

(dis

cuss

ed i

n G

raen

&

Cas

hman

, 19

75)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

. 19

84)

7 ite

ms

adap

ted

from

Neg

otia

ting

Latit

ude

scal

e (G

raen

Bc

Cas

hman

, 19

75 a

nd L

iden

&

Gra

en,

1980

)

LMX

(8 i

tem

s)

adap

ted

from

Sca

ndur

a &

Gra

en

(198

4)

LMX

(5 i

tem

s)

adap

ted

from

Dan

sere

au.

Gra

en,

& H

aga

(197

5) a

nd

Gra

en

& Sc

hiem

ann

(197

8)

Raw

Scor

es: M

ANC

OVA

; AN

CO

VA.

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

LMX

scor

es u

sed

to c

lass

ify s

ubje

cts

as in

-, m

iddl

e-,

or o

ut-g

roup

; fo

nver

sa-

tiona

l An

alys

is.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns.

Raw

Scor

es; S

EM.

Stud

y

107.

Lid

en,

Way

ne,

& St

ilwel

l

Tabl

e 2.

(C

o~~i

~~ed

)

Repo

rted

Mea

sure

Us

ed”

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Anal

ytic

Met

hod

Raw

Scor

es: M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

(1

993)

10

8. M

urry

(1

993)

LM

X (5

item

s)

adap

ted

from

Sca

ndur

a &

Gra

en

(198

4)

and

Gra

en,

WAB

A.

109.

Phi

llips,

D

uran

, &

Howe

11

(199

3)

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp

(198

2b)

18-it

em

Attri

butio

n/Ex

pect

atio

n sc

ale

(Die

nesc

h,

1985

)

110.

Sco

tt (1

993)

LM

X (1

4 ite

ms)

(re

porte

d as

dev

elop

ed

by G

raen

, N

ovak

, &

Som

mer

- ka

mp

[ 198

2b])

111.

Tan

ner,

Dun

n,

& C

honk

o (1

993)

11

2. T

ansk

y (1

993)

113.

Van

sude

van

(199

3)

114.

Vec

chio

(1

993)

Exch

ange

R

elat

ions

hip

Qua

lity

(6 it

ems)

(n

ew

scal

e)

LMX

(7 it

ems)

(G

raen

&

Cas

bman

, 19

75; t

his

is a

4-it

em

scal

e)

LMX

(mod

ified

ve

rsio

n of

14-

item

sca

le)

(sou

rce

of s

cale

not

rep

orte

d)

LMX

(4 it

ems)

(L

iden

&

Gra

en,

1980

)

Expl

orat

ory

and

Con

firm

ator

y Fa

ctor

2 3

Anal

ysis

(C

FA).

2 Ra

w Sc

ores

; Cor

rela

tions

: M

ult.

Reg

res-

si

on;

SEM

. %

Raw

Scor

es (

trich

otom

ized

): M

ANO

VA.

2 s 2 Ra

w Sc

ores

; t-t

ests

: C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es; C

lust

er A

naly

sis;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion;

SE

M.

Raw

Scor

es f

or L

MX

(tric

hoto

miz

ed);

Intra

clas

s C

orre

latio

n C

oeffi

cien

t fo

r one

va

riabl

e;

Cor

rela

tions

; AN

OVA

; Su

b-

grou

p An

alys

is.

115.

Way

ne &

Gre

en

(199

3)

116.

Wilh

elm

, H

erd,

&

Stei

ner

(199

3)

117.

Ash

kana

sy &

O’C

onno

r ( 1

994)

118.

Bau

er

& G

reen

(1

994)

11

9. B

orch

grev

ink

& Bo

ster

(1

994)

12

0. D

elug

a &

Perry

(1

994)

12

1. D

uarte

, G

oods

on,

& Kh

ch

(199

4)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

7-ite

m

LMX

scal

e ad

apte

d fro

m D

anse

reau

, G

raen

, &

Hag

a (1

975)

an

d G

raen

&

Cas

hman

(1

975)

N

egot

iatin

g La

titud

e (4

item

s)

(Lid

en

& G

raen

. 19

80)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

14-it

em

scal

e (o

btai

ned

from

Gra

en,

pers

onal

co

mm

unic

atio

n,

1990

) LM

X (1

7 ite

ms)

(G

raen

&

Scan

dura

, 19

85)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

-5 -. v,

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; AN

OVA

. Ra

w Sc

ores

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Raw

Scor

es (

both

con

tinuo

us

and

cate

gori-

ca

l); M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion;

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

Scal

ing.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Raw

Scor

es;

CFA

. Ra

w Sc

ores

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mut

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

Stud

y

Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Rep

orte

d M

easu

re

Use

d#

122.

Kin

icki

&

Vecc

hio

(199

4)

123.

Phi

llips

& Be

deia

n (1

994)

124.

Sca

ndur

a &

Schr

iesh

eim

(1

994)

12

5. S

cott

& Br

uce

(199

4)

126.

Bas

u &

Gre

en

(199

5)

129.

Kel

ler

& D

anse

reau

(1

995)

130.

Kra

mer

(1

995)

131.

Maj

or,

Kozlo

wsk

i, C

hao.

&

Gar

dner

(1

995)

13

2. S

ias

& Ja

blin

(1

995)

133.

Bau

er

& G

reen

(1

996)

13

4. B

hal

& An

sari

(199

6)

13.5

. Mas

lyn,

Far

mer

, &

Fedo

r w

f4

136.

Gre

en,

Ande

rson

, &

Shiv

ers

0.99

6)

138.

Set

toon

, Be

nnet

t, &

Lide

n (1

996)

13

9. T

hibo

deau

x &

Lowe

(1

996)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

. 19

84)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Raw

Scor

es: M

u&.

Reg

ress

ion.

D

evia

tion

Scor

es f

or L

‘MX

corre

late

d w

ith

Raw

Scor

es o

f ot

her

varia

bles

. Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n:

SEM

.

LMX

(14

item

s) (

repo

rted

as de

velo

ped

by G

raen

, N

ovak

, &

Som

mer

- ka

mp

[198

2b])

I(-ite

m s

cale

ada

pted

fro

m G

raen

, N

ovak

&

Som

mer

kam

p (1

982b

) an

d Se

ers

& G

raen

(1

984)

.

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

Mul

t. R

egre

s-

sion

; SE

M.

Raw

Scor

es; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

LMX

(5 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oel,

1982

a) f

or s

uper

viso

rs:

WAB

A.

Mod

ified

vers

ion

of s

ame

scal

e fo

r su

bord

inat

es.

3-le

vel

nom

inal

LM

X sc

ale

(1 i

tem

) (n

ew)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

7 ite

ms

(Gra

en

& C

ashm

an,

1975

)

LMX

(8 i

tem

s)

(Sca

ndur

a &

Gra

en,

1984

) Sa

mpl

e 1:

24

new

item

s, a

nd L

MX

(5 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Lide

n,

& H

oel,

1982

a)

Sam

ple

2: 1

0 ite

ms

(redu

ced

from

Sam

ple

1 re

sults

), an

d ite

ms

of

Atte

ntio

n an

d La

titud

e (D

anse

reau

, Al

utto

, &

Yam

mar

ino,

19

84)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

7 ite

ms

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

LMX-

MDM

(L

iden

&

Mas

lyn,

19

98)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

ANO

VA:

MAN

OVA

. Ra

w Sc

ores

; Mul

t. R

egre

ssio

n.

I;;

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

; t-t

ests

: G

C

hi-s

quar

e.

5;:

Raw

Scor

es: M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Cor

rela

tions

: Fa

ctor

Ana

lysi

s.

; x31

Raw

Scor

es; C

orre

latio

ns;

E an

d F

ratio

s z

of W

ABA

I. r:

Raw

Scor

es: C

orre

latio

ns:

SEM

. 5G

7

Raw

Scor

es; S

EM.

o<

.- Ra

w Sc

ores

: SEM

. ;;

Raw

Scor

es (

dich

otom

ized)

: C

orre

latio

ns:

; C

hi-s

quar

e;

MAN

OVA

.

Stud

y Re

porte

d M

easu

re

Used

0 An

alyt

ic M

etho

d 2 .i

140.

Willi

ams,

G

avin

, &

Willi

ams

LMX

(8 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

Ra

w Sc

ores

; Par

tial

Cor

rela

tions

; Va

rianc

e (1

996)

R

educ

tion

Rat

e; S

EM.

5

141.

Bas

u &

Gre

en

(199

7)

5 ite

ms

(Gra

en.

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

t9

82b;

See

rs &

Gra

en,

1984

) Ra

w Sc

ores

; R

egre

ssio

n;

MAN

OVA

. ;

142.

Eng

le

& Lo

rd

(199

7)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& Sc

hrie

shei

m,

1994

) Ra

w Sc

ores

: Cor

rela

tions

; H

iera

rchi

cal

z R

egre

ssio

n.

s 14

4. W

ayne

, Sh

ore

& Li

den

(199

7)

LMX-

7 (S

cand

ura

& G

raen

, 19

84)

Raw

Scor

es;

CFA

; SE

M.

VI

145.

Kle

in

& Ki

m

(199

8)

LMX

(7 i

tem

s)

(Gra

en,

Nov

ak,

& So

mm

erka

mp,

19

82b)

Ra

w Sc

ores

; AN

OVA

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion.

14

6. L

iden

&

Mas

lyn

(199

8)

LMX-

MDM

(1

3 ite

ms)

(n

ew

scal

e)

Raw

Scor

es;

Cor

rela

tions

; M

ult.

Reg

ress

ion;

SE

M.

147.

Sch

riesh

eim

, N

eide

r, LM

X-6

(Sch

riesh

eim

, N

eide

r, Sc

andu

ra.

& ‘p

eppe

r, 19

92a)

Ra

w Sc

ores

; W

ABA;

M

utt.

Reg

ress

ion.

&

Scan

dura

(1

998)

Nore

. M

odifie

d ve

rsio

ns

of p

revio

usly-

used

in

stru

men

ts

are

labe

led

“new

” ab

ove

if ite

ms

were

ch

ange

d,

adde

d,

or

dele

ted.

” R

efer

ence

s fo

r sc

ale

sour

ce(s

) re

porte

d in

thi

s co

lum

n ar

e th

ose

mad

e by

th

e au

thor

(s)

of t

he

resp

ectiv

e ar

ticle

s.

The

item

s us

ed

in s

tudi

es

in s

ome

inst

ance

s di

d no

t co

rresp

ond

with

th

e cit

atio

n giv

en

by

the

auth

or(s

) as

the

sour

ce

of t

he

mea

sure

. “T

he

LMX-

7 sc

afe

refe

rs

to t

he

7-ite

m

LMX

scal

e re

porte

d in

Sca

ndur

a an

d Gr

aen

(198

4)

and

deve

loped

by

G

raen

, No

vak,

and

Som

mer

kam

p (1

982b

). * O

ne

varia

ble,

Ro

te

Diffe

rent

iatio

n.

was

obta

ined

by

su

mm

ing

the

abso

lute

va

lue

of

diffe

renc

es

betw

een

each

m

embe

r’s

Nego

tiatin

g La

titud

e sc

ore

and

the

mea

n Ne

gotia

ting

Latit

ude

of

the

work

unit.

d M

embe

r sc

ores

on

Ne

gotia

ting

Latit

ude

were

ad

just

ed

to

the

grou

p’s

aver

age.

92 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 70 No. 1 1999

Structure items from the Ohio State studies’ Leader Behavior Description Quesdon- naire (LBDQ), with one study “augmenting” these with 20 additional items (Graen, Dansereau, Minami, & Cashman, 1973a).’ Schriesheim (1980) and Katerberg and Horn (1981) also used Consideration and Initiating Structure items from the revised LBDQ (Schriesheim, 1980, used a modified version of the revised LBDQ [Schries- heim, 19791).

Additionally, the Role Orientation Index (RQI) was used along with the LBDQ by Graen et al. (1972b, 1973a) as a supplementary leadership measure. The Graen et al. (1972s) study used a third measure, Leader-Member Influence, which was reported to be similar to one employed by Tannenbaum (1968).

Leader-member exchange was later measured by the Supervisory Attention scale, also referred to by several other labels (Supervisor Treatment, Leadership Attention, Leadership Support, Leader Attention, and Support). However, as only Haga et al. (1974) give a complete list of items and response categories (caned Supervisor Treatment in that article), it is difficult to determine whether the four studies reporting use of this measure actually used the same instrument. However, the several that did report the content areas they measured presented somewhat different lists (Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973b; Haga et al., 1974; Dansereau et al., 1975; Craen gi Ginsburgh, 1977).

A two-item measure, Negotiating Latitude, was first used by Dansereau et al. (1975) to measure LMX in conjunction with measures of Supervisor Attention (Leadership Attention and Leadership Support). In the same year, Graen and Cashman (1975) published a study that used a four-item measure of Negotiating Latitude: information was not provided regarding this measure. However, reference was made to Haga et al. (1974), Dansereau et al. (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen, Dansereau, Haga, and Cashman (1975). Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) later provided information on two of the four items used in the Graen and Cashman (1975) study, and the two appear similar to the two used by Dansereau et al (1975). No information was given by the authors regarding the two new items’ development or why they were included.

The two-item measure of Negotiating Latitude was also used in two additional studies. Cashman et al. (1976) used a two-item measure called Superior Negotiating Latitude; the two items were similar to Dansereau et al’s (1975) with only minor wording changes. Cashman et al. (1976) also used a three-item measure, Superior Vertical Exchange, but no information was presented regarding the items nor were any sources cited as references for the measure. Graen and Ginsburgh’s (1977) measure, Leader Acceptance, was composed of two items that appear similar to those of the Negotiating Latitude measure of Dansereau et al. (1975).

However, the authors differentiate Leader Acceptance from Negotiating Lati- tude; Leader Acceptance is based on the leader’s response to the two items regarding the member, whereas Negotiating Latitude involves the member’s response concern- ing the leader. This study also looked at Leadership Treatment (as a dependent variable), composed of five scales: Leader Attention, Info~ation, Support, Personal Sensitivity, and Allowance for Self-determination; some content areas appear simi- lar to those in the Supervisor Treatment scale of Haga et al, (1974).

The Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, a four-item measure, was used to

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 93

assess LMX by Graen et al. (1977). One of the items was similar to the first item of Negotiating Latitude (Dansereau et al., 1975), but the measure included three new items. The authors refer to Graen and Cashman (1975) for details on data collection, and state that validity evidence for the measure is presented in Graen and Cashman (197.5) and Cashman and Graen (1977). However, the Graen and Cashman (1975) study does not present the items used, and one of the items Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) report Graen and Cashman (1975) as using was not used by Graen et al. (1977). Graen et al. (1977) used a Leader’s Latitude and Support scale, in addition to the Leader-Boss Linking-Pin Quality scale, as a measure of leadership. No information was provided regarding the items or the response categories of this measure, nor were any supportive or informative citations given.

Schiemann’s (1977) dissertation did not clearly distinguish between measures used to capture the exchange relationship and those that were just related to it. However, it appears that the Leader Behavior Index [for which Dansereau (1975) is referenced on p. 45 but Dansereau et al. (1975) was apparently meant] and the Dyadic Exchange scale [Graen & Cashman (1975) are cited] were intended as measures of the exchange relationship. The Leader Behavior Index consisted of three subscales: (1) Information, for which some item content appears similar to the Supervisory Attention scale (Graen et al., 1973b) and the Supervisory Treatment scale (Haga et al., 1974); (2) Assurance and Attention (consisting of four items, all corresponding to the Supervisory Attention scale; Graen et al., 1973b); and (3) Support, appearing to correspond to the Leadership Support scale as described by Graen and Ginsburgh (1977). The second instrument Schiemann used to measure the exchange relationship, the Dyadic Exchange scale, is composed of four items which appear to be a combination of those used in the Negotiating Latitude scales of Graen et al. (1977) and Graen and Schiemann (1978).

A four-item measure of LMX was again used in 1978 by Graen and Schiemann, with two new items and two items drawn from the Negotiating Latitude scale of Dansereau et al. (1975) ( minor wording changes were made). The authors refer- enced Graen and Cashman (1975) as having extended and validated the Dansereau et al. (1975) measure, so it is possible that the two “new” items were actually the same as those used by Graen and Cashman (1975); however, it is not possible to determine whether this is the case, since Graen and Cashman (1975) did not report their items.

The 1980s did not bring any clearer consensus in LMX measurement, although the development of a seven-item scale used in Graen et al. (1982b) and reported in Scandura and Graen (1984) (LMX-7) has become the most commonly-used measure for LMX operationalization (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The majority of LMX research throughout the 1980s continued to use many different LMX scales, without providing clear rationale for the use of a particular measure and without much (if any) psychometric support for the soundness of the measures employed. Graen and his colleagues used 5-,7-, 12-, 14-, and 17-item measures of LMX during this period, as well as a four-item Negotiating Latitude scale (see Table 2).

The rest of the research in the 1980s employed 16 different measures, reported to assess Negotiating Latitude (two- and four-item scales), Influence Opportunity, Vertical Exchange, Leadership Attention, LMX (three-, four-, five-, six-, seven-,

94 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1499

nine-, lo-, and 25item scales), Non-Contractual Social Exchange, and VDL, as well as nominations of best and worst working relationships. As mentioned previously. most studies (1) did not indicate the rationale for choosing a particular measure; (2) did not provide scale item content (even if the measure was new or modified); or (3) did not indicate the source or origin of the measure (even if an existing scale was used, sources would typically be listed that do not correspond to the measure employed).

As shown in Table 2, LMX measurement in the 1990s is still characterized by researchers using different LMX measures, some of which are developed on an ad- hoc basis or modified from existing measures without adequate psychometric testing. Of the 75 empirical works conducted during this decade and reported in Table 2, numerous different LMX scales were employed. Because of a great deal of variation in reporting practices employed in the studies reviewed, it is difficult to determine whether the scales used were identical to those previously employed or to what extent they were altered, For example, as can be seen in Table 2, measures consisting of the same number of items referenced different studies as the source of the measure, It does appear, at a minimum, that at least 12 different scales were used to measure LMX in the 1990s (since the number of items varied); various studies reported using one-, four-, five-, six-, seven-, eight-, 12-, 13-, 14-, 16-, 17-, and 24- item scales, In addition, Negotiating Latitude (both two- and four-item versions~, Supervisory/Leadership Attention (four- and nine-item scales), Vertical Exchange Quality (five and 14 items), Exchange Relationship Quality (six items), nominations of best and worst working relationships, an Attribution/Expectation scale (18 items), and a three-level “nominal LMX scale” .were used as operationalizations of the construct. The bulk of studies employed either LMX-7 or a five-item LMX measure (it does not appear that the studies used the same five-item scale, however).

Somewhat noteworthy is the recent recommendation by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) that researchers use a revised seven-item LMX measure. This new scale is quite similar to the LMX-7, with the major difference being a change in response categories (from four to five categories and revised scale anchors). However, it is unclear as to why this new measure is recommended and, unfortunately, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) provide no evidence of adequate psychometric testing of the newly revised LMX-7 scale. [As noted by Schriesheim et al. (1993) and others, making even minor modifications to a scale may change its psychometric properties, so that testing revised measures is essential to the development of con~den~e in their psychometric adequacy.]

Several similar but slightly different versions of LMX measures have also evolved from the LMX research stream. Seers (1989) developed a lo-item Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale that was adapted from an LMX scale used in Seers and Graen (1984). Uhl-Bien and Graen (1992) used a Project LMX (PLMX) scale and a Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale. The PLMX measure consisted of one item with a 5-point response scale (the item and the end anchors were reported). The Team-Member Exchange (TMX) scale was a seven-item scale, and both Seers (1989) and Uhl-Bien (1991) were referenced but the items and response categories were not given. Baugh, Graen, and Page (1993) used several scales, all reported to measure LMX. They used two “process measures,” both single-item scales; the first

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 95

was described as the “centroid item from the fourteen-item LMX scale (Graen and Cashman, 1975)” (Baugh et al., 1993, p. 10) and the second was said to be the “centroid item from the 7-item team member exchange scale” (Baugh et al., 1993, p. 10) (no reference was given for this second measure). Although only one item of each measure was used for data analysis, both of the scales from which the items came were included in their entirety on the research questionnaire. The two process measure items and their response categories were listed, and the response alterna- tives listed for the two items which made up the process measures are identical to the response categories listed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) for a similar question they present in their recommended LMX measure.

Paralleling the development of the LMX measure as described above, another measure of exchange quality, Vertical Exchange, was developed by Wakabayashi, Minami, Hashimoto, Sano, Graen, and Novak (1981), and consisted of 12 items. The items and response categories were not provided, but the authors indicated the five content areas from which the items were drawn, and the Graen and Cashman (1975) study (which used a four-item measure) was referenced. A 12-item Vertical Exchange scale was also used by Wakabayashi and Graen (1984) and by Wakabay- ashi, Graen, Graen, and Graen (1988) both listing five content areas measured by the scale and both referencing Graen and Cashman (1975) (a four-item measure) and Cashman et al. (1976) ( a t wo-item Superior Negotiating Latitude scale and a three-item Superior Vertical Exchange measure). Wakabayashi and Graen’s 1989 investigation involved two studies, each employing Vertical Exchange measures: one for which four content areas were discussed, and a second which consisted of 14 items (the items and response categories were not presented for either). Both referenced Dansereau et al.% (1975) study, which utilized a two-item measure.

Addressing the multidimensionality of the LMX construct, several different mea- sures have been developed to assess the mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty subdimensions that were suggested by Dienesch and Liden (1986) as being the key subdimensions of LMX. Dienesch (1987) used two scales developed by Dienesch (1986) to measure the three dimensions hypothesized by Dienesch and Liden (1986): an Attribution/Expectation scale and a Behavioral Incident scale. Gerras (1992) developed a 24-item scale designed to measure these three subdimensions. Phillips. Duran, and Howell (1993) used 18 of 20 items from an Attribution/Expectation scale (developed by Dienesch, 1986) to measure the three subdimensions. Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, and Tepper (1992a) developed and Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisen- bath, and Neider (1992b) further validated a six-item measure with two items for each subdimension. Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed a 13-item scale that includes these three dimensions plus the added dimension of professional respect. Both the LMX-6 of Schriesheim et al. (1992a) and the LMX-MDM of Liden and Maslyn (1998) have undergone reasonable psychometric testing and have shown promising evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity.

Summary Given the history of LMX research which is chronicled above, it is not surprising

that confusion exists within the literature about the nature of the phenomenon or that equivocal relationships have sometimes been found with expected outcomes

96 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 19%

(Gerstner & Day, 1997). Additionally, mirroring other leadership domains, without the use of a single construct definition and operationalization, it is very difficult to make comparisons across studies or to make incremental progress in replicating study findings. Finally, it should be noted that even the primary developer of LMX theory himself has at times expressed uncertainty as to what some of the LMX research instruments actually measure.

In Graen’s (1976) discussion of two previous studies, Dansereau et al. (1975) and Haga et al. (1974), he questions, “What was ‘negotiating latitude’ measuring? Obviously we had a handle on an important phenomena [sic], but what was its nature?” (Graen, 1976, p. 1240). The measure of negotiating latitude (the variable used to indicate development of a dyadic structure in initial LMX studies) was purported to “assess the relative openness of a leader to individualized assistance for a member” (Graen & Cashman, 1975, p. 145). Seven years later the same items, now referred to as LMX, were characterized as assessing individualized leadership (Graen et al., 1982a, p, 869) and the quality of LMX (Graen et al., 1982b, p. 118). The same inconsistency and confusion appears to exist for the LMX-7 and revised LMX-7 scales (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Simply put, this is highly problematic, and we consider this issue further in the discussion and conclusion sections of this article.

Analytic Practices in Research

While theory specification and measurement are critical aspects of increasing knowledge in any research domain, the analysis of data collected tells us what really exists with regard to the phenomenon of interest. Klein et al. (1994) point out that incorrect conclusions may be drawn when the level of a theory, its construct measurement, and the statistical analyses employed to test the theory are not the same. Furthermore, considering only one level of analysis and excluding others can cause the researcher to miss, hide, or improperly identify effects (Yamma~no & Dansereau, 1995), and a recent study by Schriesheim et al. (1995) clearly suggests the necessity of first theoretically identi~ing the level of analysis at which a phenom- enon of interest occurs and then empirically assessing whether the tested relation- ships align with those levels of analysis.

LMX theory of the 1980s and early 1990s appears to have accepted the position that the dyad (i.e., the relationship between a leader and each of his/her subordi- nates) is the level of analysis at which effects could be expected to manifest (cf. Graen et al., 1982a, p. 871).’ Some LMX researchers have even asserted that the LMX approach is a better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS ap- proach (e.g., Graen et al., 1982a; Graen & Schiemann, 1978; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). A major problem with this assertion, however, is the fact that it cannot be supported without the use of analytic techniques which are appropriate for testing multi-level theories. This is true because while the ALS and VDL models are theoretically mutually exclusive, they have been found to operate concurrently in some data sets (cf., Dansereau et al., 1982; Nachman, Dansereau, & Naughton, 1983) (perhaps because a supervisor can act similarly across subordinates on one behavioral dimension while behaving differently with the same subordinates on another dimension; Dansereau et al., 1982).

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 97

Table 3. Summa~ of Analytic Meth~ology Employed in LMX Studies

Time Period

1910-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995+” Total

Total number of studies 6 8 20 28 57 18 137 Number of studies using raw

scores and ordinary raw score analyse? 6 8 15 2s 49 16 119

Number of studies using within- and between-partitioned scores

and WABA 0 0 2 1 5 2 10 Other’ 0 0 3 2 3 0 8

’ It should be noted that the numbers shown in this cohtmn (1995+) are not for a full five-year period, as are the other columns in this table (e.g., 1970-1974). ‘While Bhal and Ansari (1996) did use WABA I to analyze the variation in the raw scores, WABA II was not employed. Additionally, the information obtained from the WABA I results was not utilized (i.e., a “within-groups” effect was found, yet raw scores were inte~reted). Therefore, this study is not included in the WABA category below but rather is included in the Raw Score category. C Studies using some combination of raw and partitioned scores and a methodology other than WABA.

Table 3 thus presents a brief summary of the analyses employed in the 137 empirical LMX studies we uncovered and examined for this review (further detail on the analyses used in these studies is provided in the right-hand column of Table 2). Although there are several approaches which might be employed to test for different levels of analysis, the within- and between-entities analytical technique of Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) appears to be the only fully appropriate one used in the literature to date (hierarchical linear modeling and other potenti~ly suitable approaches have apparently not been employed thus far). We therefore briefly use this approach to illustrate why the testing of multiple levels is critical for research in domains such as leader-member exchange.

saga: An l~~usfraf~o~ of boy Mu~f~p/e Levels Must Be Tested The basic practice which underlies within- and between-entities analysis

(WABA) is to partition data into within-cells (deviation from cell average) and between-cells (cell average) components, where the cells represent analytic entities such as work groups. The relationships which result from these calculations may be summarized in an overall equation as follows (cf. Dansereau et al., 1984):

“BX”B,‘B,, + “Wx’W,qW,, = rTxy, (1)

where ?B, and ?B, are the between-entity etas for variables x and y, TWX and ?W, are the corresponding within-entity etas, (Bs and ‘W,.. are the corresponding between-entity and wi~in-entity correlations, and rTXy is the raw-score or total correlation.

qW, and “W, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores ([x”] or [y”]) with the appropriate within-entity deviation scores ([x, - xk] or [yn - yk]) for n parts (e.g., the 1 to n respondents) within k entities (e.g., the 1 to X work units); “B, and ?B, may be calculated by correlating the raw scores of the n parts ([x,] or [yJ) with

98 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999

their between-entity scores (i.e., the appropriate [xk] or [yk] for the entity within which each part is situated). The within-entity correlation may be computed by correlating the within-entity deviation scores (i.e., [” - x~] and [y” - yh]) for the n parts, while the between-entity correlation may be computed by assigning each part its appropriate between-entity scores ([xk] and [yk]) and then correlating these across the parts (i.e., between-entity correlations are simply correlations between the entity means. weighted by the number of parts within each entity).

As can be seen from the fundamental WABA equation (Equation l), any raw score correlation is just the sum of two separate components-a between-entity (cell) component (3BxqBy’Bxy) and a within-entity (deviation) component (~W~~W~rW~~); both are the products of multiplying their appropriate etas and component correla- tions. Thus, for example, a raw score correlation of 0.00 may be highly misleading if it is based upon a large negative within-entity component and a large positive between-entity component (the conclusion drawn would be one of “no relationship,” while the data actually support a negative within- and a positive between-entities relationship). Consequently, raw score correlations (IT,,) cannot be unambiguously interpreted-the explicit examination of levels of analysis is absolutely critical for the drawing of sound conclusions.

Analysis in LMX Research As shown briefly in Table 3, although researcher recognition of the importance

of testing hypotheses for level of analysis inferences appears to have increased over time, to date only a total of 10 (of 137) empirical studies provide analytically sound evidence that can speak about support (or nonsupport) for LMX theory at a particular level of analysis. Ten studies certainly cannot be considered a “weight of evidence” in favor of the basic LMX or VDL hypothesis, particularly because not all of these studies have found support for more within- than between-groups effects. Thus, the extant evidence appears to belie the assertion that the VDLl LMX approach is clearly more empirically supported than is the ALS approach. Additional research which utilizes appropriate data-analytic techniques is needed before we can say with any certainty that one approach is more strongly supported than the other.

Furthermore, and as can be seen from examining Table 2, none of the 10 studies which did use appropriate data-~alytic methods also used what would be considered a fully acceptable LMX measure today (i.e., the LMX-7 scale; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In the 1980-84 period, Dansereau et al. (1982) used an 11-item Leadership Attention scale, and Nachman et al. (1983) used a two-item Negotiating Latitude measure. In 1985-89, Ferris (1985) used the five-item LMX measure of Graen et al. (1982a). In 1990-94, Yamma~no and Dubinsky (1990, 1992) used measures of Supervisor Attention and Latitude (the second study also employed one-item measures of Satisfaction with Performance and Job Congruence), while Baugh (1992) used a 1Citem LMX scale. Markham, Murry, and Scott (1992) employed a four-item Leadership Attention measure that was derived from Dansereau et al.% (1984) 11-item scale, while Murry (1993) used a five-item LMX scale derived from that of Scandura and Graen (1984) and Graen et al. (1982b).

Finally, and most recently, Keller and Dansereau (1995) employed a five-item

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 99

LMX scale which was taken from Graen et al. (1982a), while Schriesheim, Neider, and Scandura (1998) used Schriesheim et al.‘s (1992a, 1992b) six-item LMX scale. Thus, even discounting Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) recent contention that the LMX-7 is the only measure which should be used, it seems clear that at least five of the 10 studies that used an appropriate analytic technique also used measures which are questionable operationalizations of the LMX construct (Dansereau et al., 1982; Markham et al., 1992; Nachman et al., 1983; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1990, 1992).

DISCUSSION

This review has examined and summarized 147 works which were completed since the constructs of VDL and LMX were first investigated in 1972. Several important difficulties have been highlighted and discussed. Some may view the numerous definitions and subdimensions of LMX, the multiple measures, and the unspecified level(s) and analysis to be part of the “richness” of LMX. However, we feel that there is a good possibility of further developing the potential of the LMX approach by providing greater clarity in the theoretical conceptualization of the construct and by enhanced measurement and attention to level(s) of analysis concerns. Thus, we make some brief recommendations with respect to needed theory, measurement, and analysis in future LMX research.

Theory

As we discussed during our review of LMX theory, it has evolved substantially over the past 25 years. This is good. One of the major criticisms which has been advanced about other leadership theories is that there has been a lack of respon- siveness to constructive criticisms provided by the field, as well as a failure to incorporate needed changes as evidence has accumulated (cf. Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b). Neither of these criticisms can be leveled at LMX theory.

On the other hand, we believe that some of the changes which have been made in LMX theory have not be accompanied by an adequate explanation of those changes or the theoretical rationale which underlies them. For example, if the theoretical definitions of LMX which are provided in Table 1 are examined, along with the subaspects which various writers have specifically mentioned as being included within the LMX construct, one cannot help but be struck by a lot of similarities and a lot of differences. While it would be hoped that work which elaborates or modifies the conceptualization of LMX would include theory, litera- ture and discussion (rationale) which integrates the new treatment with previous work (and which develops it in reasonable detail), this simply has not been done.

As a recent case in point, we believe that Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) most recent revision of the theory does not adequately justify why the theory now only focuses on the relationship between a leader and a follower (and no longer considers the leaders and followers themselves). Additionally, it is now becoming increasingly accepted that “good” theory clearly states the level(s) of analysis at which its hypothesized relationships hold (cf., Klein et al., 1994). Unfortunately, again, the

100 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1994

most current version of LMX theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) now appears to have been modified so that it is unacceptable in this regard. We should note that we are not the only ones believing this-Dansereau et al. (1995a, p. 100) feel that currently the “LMX approach provides little guidance as to how to view leaders or followers from a levels-of-analysis perspective,” and that this is a critical deficiency. Additionally, Dansereau (1995, p. 484) now argues that the newest “LMX approach is simply unclear as to what level [of analysis] it applies.”

In addition to needing increased attention to the provision of logic and linkages between new and previous LMX theory, it seems clear to us that more theoretical work is needed on LMX. The major theoretical papers number only a few, and with few exceptions, have been written by Graen and associates. We believe that broader-based, more frequent, and more systematic synthesis and integration of the LMX literature is needed, along with more basic theorization and model devel- opment. Certainly, future theoretical explications of LMX should clearly state the level(s) of analysis at which the phenomena are expected to hold.

While some theorists may choose to go back to VDL’s propositions regarding differentiation among subordinates (a within-unit phenomenon), or to adopt Dan- sereau’s (1995) suggestion of independent dyads, it may also be fruitful to explore alterative levels of analysis possibilities (e..g, Wiley, 1988). If some of this were to be performed by a cross section of the field, perhaps an increased fertilization of new ideas would occur. In any event, regardless of authorship, it seems critical to us that more attention be devoted to theory development. And, at the same time, it seems important that scholars who use the LMX approach in the future be more careful to not modify or extrapolate extant theory in their writings without providing a well-developed and sound theoretical basis for doing so.

Measurement

As evidenced by our review of LMX measures, and ~fortunately following a good portion of management research practice (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987; Schries- heim et al., 1993), LMX scales seem to have been developed on an ad-hoc, evolution- ary basis, without the presentation of any clear logic or theory justifying the changes which were made. Also, items have been added to and subtracted from LMX measures without adequately discussing or presenting evidence regarding the ef- fect(s) of such changes on scale validity.

Perhaps even more troublesome, none of the scales used to measure LMX appear to be “based on either systematic psychometric study or explicit construct validation” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986, p. 623; see also Bhal & Ansari, 1996, and Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), althou~ validity assessments should be conducted on all measures on an on-going basis (Guion & Schriesheim, 1997; Nunnally & Bern- stein, 1994). Schriesheim et al. (1992b) have suggested that extant LMX measures have not been content valid because, “‘LMX scales have typically not been developed using an a priori theoretical definition of its content subdomains” (Schriesheim et al., 1992b, p. 984).

This clearly violates one of the more important principles of scale development for, as noted by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 102), “one should ensure content

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 101

validity (adequacy of sampling the material on which people are tested) in terms of a well-formulated plan and procedure of test construction before the actual test is developed rather than evaluate this after construction.” Additionally, it should be emphasized that content validity is not a trivial psychometric property, since a measure that is not content valid cannot. be construct valid (Schriesheim et al., 1993) and because Cook, Campbell, and Perrachio (1990, p. 505) suggest that one of the more serious threats to construct validity is “the inadequate preoperational explication of constructs.”

Our review thus suggests that the LMX construct may not be what was actually measured by at least some of the LMX scales which have been employed to date. Because a systematic program of development and validation has not been con- ducted, exactly what these scale are measuring is unknown and attempting to substantively synthesize the existing literature may therefore not make much sense.

As such, we believe that either a reconceptualization of the LMX construct is needed or further development and validation of a suitable LMX scale should be undertaken. With respect to this second course of action, it is probably worthwhile to note that current LMX theory lacks a clear description of the exchange process between a leader and subordinate (Dansereau et al., 1995a; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) and that it “doesn’t specify what pattern of downward exchange relationships with different subordinates is optimal for leadership effectiveness” (Yukl, 1994, p. 239). Furthermore, although LMX has been considered to involve an “exchange” process, neither the supervisor nor the subordinate are asked in any of the LMX scales (with the exception of the Negotiating Latitude scale used by Dansereau et al., 1975) what must be given (exchanged) for the reward or benefit to be received (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

However, some possible dimensions of the leader-member exchange have been suggested (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Thus, future work may be able to build upon this initial effort and a great opportunity appears to exist for psychometric work to advance future research on LMX. To avoid the mistakes of the past, such future psychometric work needs to carefully follow established practices for scale development and validation (cf., Hinkin, 1995; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Schries- heim et al., 1993). Additionally, a challenge exists for future researchers to better and more accurately describe their measures and how they relate to previous measures, and why one measure is employed rather than another.

Analysis

The level of analysis at which LMX theory should generally be tested appears to be either dyadic or within-group, and there appears to be basic agreement within the field regarding this position (see Footnote 2, however). The determination of whether LMX is a dyadic or within-group phenomenon and whether LMX is a better predictor of leadership outcomes than is the ALS approach is an empirical question which requires the use of analytic techniques which test for various levels of analysis. A dyadic approach would involve looking at each supervisor-subordinate dyad as a “whole,” the analytic focus being the deviation of each dyad member’s score from this whole (or dyad average) score. Alternatively, a within-group analysis

LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 I990

would consider the entire unit or work group as the “whole.” with deviations of individual members’ scores from this whole (or group average) as the focus.

Unfortunately, although methodologies have existed for some time to permit such testing (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984), apparently only 10 studies have employed an appropriate methodology. Because it is highly inappropriate to draw conclusions about the level of analysis at which a particular effect operates without first testing for such an effect, it therefore appears that support for LMX theory as a dyadic or within-group protrayal of leadership processes is substantially less than it should be. As we noted earlier, 10 studies, even if all were supportive of LMX level-of- analysis predictions, cannot be considered an adequate weight of scientific evidence on as complex a phenomenon as leader-member exchange.

The recommendation which seems most reasonable to rectify this situation seems obvious to us: (1) all future research on LMX should first specify the level(s) of analysis at which effects are expected to occur, and (2) suitable analytic methods should be employed to test for such levels and effects. We have briefly highlighted within- and between-entities analysis (WABA) as one particularly suitable approach but we should note that others exist as well. Thus, it does not matter whether one is or is not favorably disposed toward WABA as a data-analytic system. What does matter is that future research on leader-member relations exercise caution in framing and then testing hypothesized relationships. Without direct and explicit treatment of the level of analysis issue future research is not any more likely to be pertinent to our understanding of leader-member exchange than is much of the extant literature to date.

CONCLUSION

Although perhaps seeming obvious at first glance, this review clearly indicates the need for improved theorization about LMX and its basic process, for improved measurement practices, and for enhanced and more appropriate data-analytic tech- niques. It is true that many scholars believe that the LMX approach has substantially contributed to deepening our understanding of fundamental leadership phenomena. However, greater advances in the future appear possible if the basic theoretical, psychometric, and statistical recommendations presented in this review are em- braced and enacted by LMX researchers.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Terri A. Scandura and Francis J. Yamma- rino for their constructive feedback and comments on earlier versions of this manu- script.

NOTES

1. Parenthetically, several versions of the LBDQ exist, but none have 40 scored items. The Halpin (1957) and the Halpin and Winer (1957) versions (which are slightly different) present 40 items but score only 30. This, plus the fact that Graen and associates incorrectly cite Stogdill and Coons (1957) Fleishman (1957) and Pleishman, Harris, and Burn (1955) as the source of the LBDQ, makes it impossible to be sure exactly what leadership

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 103

measures they employed in these studies or how they were used (cf., Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977b).

2. As mentioned earlier, Craen and colleagues (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Graen & Wakabayashi, 1994) have recently placed theoretical emphasis on the relationship or linkage between the superior and subordinate and excluded the leader and the follower (as individuals) from the LMX model (Dansereau et al., 1995a). As Dansereau et al. (1995a) have noted, this new emphasis results in ambiguities regarding the appropriate level of analysis for this phenomenon. It seems clear to us, however, and to Dansereau and colleagues (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Nachman, Dansereau, & Naughton, 1983; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992) that in most instances tests of the LMX model need to examine whether results hold at the dyadic, within-group, or other levels of analysis.

REFERENCES

Achinstein, P. (1968). Concepts of science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1994). Value differences as a barrier in leader-member

exchange: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14,496515.

Barge, J. K., & Schlueter, D. W. (1991). Leadership as organizing: A critique of leadership instruments. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 541-570.

Basu, R. (1991). An empirical examination of LMX and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer- sity Microfilms International, 9201299.

Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinate performance, leader-subordinate compatibility, and exchange quality in leader-member dyads: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 77-92.

Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

Bauer, T., & Green, S. (1994). LMX: Relationships withperformance, expectations, experience, and leader delegation at two points in time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

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

Baugh, G. (1992). Interpersonal influence in a project organization: A role set analysis. UMZ Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9233218.

Baugh, G., Graen, G. B., & Page, D. (1993). Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.

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

Blau, G. (1988). An investigation of the apprenticeship organizational socialization strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 176-195.

Borchgrevink, C. P., & Boster, F. J: (1994). Leader-member exchange: A test of the measure- ment model. Hospitality Research Journal, 17, 75-100.

Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organiza- tional determinants. Administration & Society, 23, 471-494.

104 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999

Cashman, J. F. (1976). The nature of vertical dvad linkages within managerial units. UMJ Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. 7616101.

Cashman. J.. Dansereau. F.. Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructurc and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 278-296.

Cashman, J. F., & Graen, G. (1977). The nature of leadership in the vertical dyad: The team building process. Cited in Graen et al. (1977, p. 504) as forthcoming in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (but not published in that journal nor in any we could find).

Chassie, M. B. (1984). Vertical dyadic linkage formation: Predictors and processes determin- ing quality superior-subordinate relationships. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8506411.

Cook. J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. London: Academic Press.

Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T.. & Perrachio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol- ogy: Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 491-576). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Copi. I. M. (1954). Symbolic logic. New York, NY: Macmillan. Cummings, L. L. (1975). Assessing the Graen/Cashman model and comparing it with other

approaches. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 181-185). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479-490.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., Markham, S. E., & Dumas, M. (1982). Multiplexed supervision and leadership: An application of within and between analysis. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 81-103). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dansereau, F.. Jr., Cashman. J., & Graen, G. B. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, IO, 184-220.

Dansereau. F.. Jr., Graen. G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995a). Leadership: The multiple level approaches. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 97-109.

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S., Naughton, T., Kim, I., Al-Kelabi, S., Lee, S., & Keller, T. (1995b). Individualized leadership: A new multiple level approach. Leadership Quarterl.y, 6, 413-450.

Day, D. D., & Crain, E. C. (1992). The role of affect and ability in initial exchange quality perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 17. 38&397.

Deluga, R. J. (1992). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 315- 326.

Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behaviour, satisfaction, and perceived superior effectiveness. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 64, 239-252.

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 105

Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19,67-86.

Dienesch, R. M. (1986). A three dimensional model of leader-member exchange: An empirical test. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Chicago, IL.

Dienesch, R. M. (1987). An empirical investigation of the relationship between quality of leader-member exchange and subordinate performance and satisfaction. UMI Disserta- tion Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8800026.

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

Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16, 619-632.

Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 395413.

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993). How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14. 239-249.

Duarte, N. T.. Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.

Duchon. D., Green, S., & Taber, T. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of attitudes, measures. and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71. 56-60.

Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader- member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59-76.

Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, P., & Duchon, D. (1992). Perceptions of an innovative climate: Examining the role of divisional affiliation, work group interaction, and leader/subordi- nate exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39, 227-235.

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

Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56. 215-239.

Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Saar, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgments about the relationship. Communication Yearbook, IO, 395-415.

Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.

Fleishman, E. A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 103-119). Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. (1955). Leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.

Fukami. C. V., & Larson, E. W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 367-371.

Gast, I. F. (1987). Leader cognitive complexity and its effects on the quality of exchange relationships with subordinates. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8708350.

Gerras, S. J. (1992). The effect of cognitive busyness and nonverbal behaviors on trait inferences and leader-member exchange judgments. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9236826.

LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. ? 19Y1

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82. X27-844.

Gessner. M. (1992). An interpersonal attraction approach to leader-member exchange: Pre- dicting the predictor. ~Mr~~sertat~on Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms International, 9234564.

Graen. G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations, In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago. IL: Rand-McNally.

Graen, G. B. (1985). Leader-member exchange scale. Unpublished paper, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, OH.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organiza- tions: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-16.5). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G., Cashman, J. F., Ginsburgh, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal investiga- tion of the managerial underst~cture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491-SO4.

Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Haga, W. J., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). The invisible organization. Boston, MA: Shenkman Publishing Co.

Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972a). Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.

Graen, G.. Dansereau, F., Jr., & Minami, T. (1972b). An empirical test of the man-in-the- middle hypothesis among executives in a hierarchical organization employing a unit- set analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 262-285.

Graen, G., Dansereau. F., Jr., Minami, T.. & Cashman, .I. (1973a). Leadership behaviors as cues to performance evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 16.611-623.

Graen, G., & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation. Organ~zat~onaZ Behavior and Human Performance, 19, l-17.

Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982a). The role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,868-872.

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

Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B., &Johnson, T. W. (1973b). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 39.5420.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1985). Leader-member exchange scale-17 Unpublished paper, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, OH.

Graen, G., & Scandura. T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.

Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied psychology, 63.206-212.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making. Jour- nal of Management Systems, 3,25-39.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Develop- ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 2.5 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership ~~~erfy, 6, 219-247.

Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi. M. (1992). Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging Ameri- can and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, &

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 107

L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4 (2nd ed., pp. 41546). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graen, G., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generaliz- ability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong infer- ence investigation. Leadership Quarterly, I, l-23.

Green. S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.

Green, S. G., Blank, W., & Liden, R. C. (1983). Market and organizational influences on bank employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68. 298-306.

Guion, R. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1997). Validity. In L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer. & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource manage- ment (pp. 380-381). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.

Haga, W. J., Graen, G., & Dansereau, F., Jr. (1974). Professionalism and role making in a service organization: A longitudinal investigation. American Sociological Review, 39, 122-133.

Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measure- ment (pp. 39-51). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Anonyuo, C. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32,466476.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967-988.

House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M.. &Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organiza- tional Behavior, 17, 71-114.

James, L. R., Gent, M. J., Hater, J. J., & Coray, K. E. (1979). Correlates of psychological influence: An illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 32, 563-588.

James, L. R.. Hater, J. J., & Jones, A. (1981). Perceptions of psychological influence: A cognitive information processing approach for explaining moderated relationships. Personnel Psychology, 34,453-477.

Jones, A. P., Glaman, J. M., & Johnson, D. S. (1993). Perceptions of a quality program and relationships with work perceptions and job attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72. 619-624.

Judge, T. A.. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.

Katerberg, R., & Horn, P. W. (1981). Effects of within-group and between-groups variation in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 218-233.

Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). LMX: Dyads embedded in groups or dyads independent of groups? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82.

108 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999

Kim, I(. I., & Organ, D. W. (1982). Determinants of leader-subordinate exchange relation ships. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 77-89.

K’Obonyo, P. 0. (1988). A dyadic upward influence process: A laboratory investigation of the effect of a subordinate’s ingratiation (praise and performance) on the supervisor- subordinate exchange relationship. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: Ilniver- sity Microfilms Inte~ational, 8910261.

Kinicki. A. J., & Vecchio. R. P. (i994). Influences on the quality of supe~isor-subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1.5, 75-82.

Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader- member exchange. and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, W-95.

KIein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory deveiopment, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 19.5229.

Korman, A. F. (1974). Contingency approaches to leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to ~eudership (pp. 189-195). Carbondale, IL: Southern llhnois University Press.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examina- tion of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546-553.

Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 39&.

Krone, K. J. (1991). Effects of leader-member exchange on subordinates’ upward influence attempts. Communication Research Report, 8, 9-18.

Lagace, R. R. (1987). An investigation into the impact of interpersonal trust on the quality of the relationship and outcome variables in the sales manager/salesperson dyad. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8729251.

Lagace, R. R. (1990). Leader-member exchange: Antecedents and consequences of the cadre and hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, IO, 11-19.

Leana, C. R. (1988). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 31. 754-774.

Lewin. K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Liden, R. C. (1985). Female perceptions of female and male managerial behavior. Sex tioles, 12, 421432.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.

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

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.

Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward influence attempts. Group & Organization Management, 21, 461-480.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderat- ing effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.

Markham, S. E.. Murry, W. D., & Scott, K. D. (1992). The dual impact of leadership on performance appraisal: A levels-of-analysis perspective. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 459-467). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 109

McClane, W. E. (1991a). Impli~tions of member role d~erentiation: Analysis of a key concept in the LMX model of leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 102-113.

McClane, W. E. (1991b). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leader- member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Research, 22, 283-300.

Murry, W. D. (1993). Leader-member exchange and work value congruence: A multiple levels approach. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9331469.

Nachman, S., Dansereau, F., & Naughton, T. J. (1983). Negotiating latitude: A within- and between-groups analysis of a key construct in the vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership. Psychological Reports, 53, 171-177.

Novak, M. A. (1982). The manager-employee questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Novak, M. A. (1984). A study of leader resources as determinants of leader-member exchange. I/MI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8509493.

Novak, M. A., 6t Graen, G. (1987). Perceived leader control as a moderator of personal leader resources contributing to leader-member exchange. Proceedings ofthe Academy of Management. 206-209.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business managers. Croup & Organization Studies, 25, 296-312.

Osigwey. C. A. B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy o~~unage- ment Review, 14, 579-594.

Peck, M. (1988). Head nurse fit with staff, administration, and situation: Impact on unit performance and staff satisfaction. UMI Dissertation Services. Arm Arbor, MI: Univer- sity Microfilms International, 8817885.

Phillips, A. S.. Br Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37,990-1001.

Phillips, R. L., Duran, C. A., & Howell, R. D. (1993). An examination of the multidimensional- ity hypothesis of leader-member exchange, using both factor analytic and structural modeling techniques. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 161-163.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987). Research methodology in organizational studies. Journal of management, 13,419-441.

Rogers, L. E., & Farace. R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measures and procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.

Rosse, R. G., & Kraut, A. I. (1983). Reconsidering the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 63-71.

Salzmann, J., & Grasha, A. F. (1991). Psychological size and psychological distance in man- ager-subordinate relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 629-646.

Scandura. T. A. (1988). Beyond the dyad: Interdependence in management networks. UMZ Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8822804.

Scandura, T. A., 81 Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal o-f Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.

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

Scandura, T. A.. & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader-member exchange approach. Leadership quarterly, 7, 243-263.

170 LEA~ERSHIPQUARTERLY Vol.10 No. I 19W

Scandura. T. A.. & Schriesheim. C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Acadrm~ of Mwlagement Journal, 37, 1588-1602.

Schiemann. W. A. (1977). The nature and prediction of organizational communication: A review of the literature and an empirical investigation. UMf dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 7724747.

Schriesheim. C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual-directed and group-directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Management Journnl, 22, 345-355.

Schriesheim, C. A.. Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). “Is it trustworthy?” A multiple levels-of-analysis reexalnination of an Ohio State leadership study with implications for future research. Leadership QuarterI-y, 6, 111-145.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr. S. (1977a). R.I.P. LPC: A reply to Fiedler. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 51-56). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois IJniversity Press.

Schriesheim. C. A.. & Kerr. S. (1977b). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leffdersh~p: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L.. & Scandura, T. A. (1998). A within- and between-groups analysis of leader-member exchange as a correlate of delegation and as a moderator of delegation relationships with performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 4I, 298-318.

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

Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and- pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.

Schriesheim, C. A.. Scandura, T. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Neider, L,. L. (1992b). Validation of a new leader-member exchange scale (LMX-6) using hierarchically-nested confirma- tory factor analysis. educational and Psychoiogjca~ Meusurement, 52, 983-992.

Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-394.

Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior, Research in Organiza- tionnl Behavior, 2, 3-43.

Scott. S. G. (1993). The influence of climate perceptions on innovative behavior: A model of individual innovation in the workplace. UMI ~~ssert~tio~ Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9319261.

Scott, S. Cr., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37,580-607.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Or~an~zat~~n~l Behnvior and Human Decision Froresses, 43, 118-135.

Seers, A.. & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 283-306.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange and employee reciprocity, Journnl of Applied Psych~~ogy~ 81.219-227.

Sias. P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22,5-38.

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 111

Sidhu, K. K. (1988). The role of a leader-member exchange and work experience in the early career development of professionals. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 8822842.

Snyder, R. A., & Bruning, N. S. (1985). Quality of vertical dyad linkages: Congruence of supervisor and subordinate competence and role stress as explanatory variables. Group and Organizational Studies, 10, 81-94.

Snyder, R. A., Williams, R. R., & Cashman, J. F. (1984). Age, tenure, and work perceptions as predictors of reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Psychology, 116, 11-21.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

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

Stepina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 93-104.

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

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A, E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sutton, R. I.. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40. 371-384.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tanner, J. F., Jr., & Castleberry, S. B. (1990). Vertical exchange quality and performance:

Studying the role of the sales manager. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage- ment, 10, 17-27.

Tanner, J. F., Jr., Dunn, M. G., & Chonko, L. B. (1993). Vertical exchange and salesperson stress. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13, 27-36.

Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 195-207.

Thibodeaux, H. F., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and mentoring. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, II, 97-114.

Tierney. P. (1992). The contribution of leadership, supportive environment, and individual attributes to creative performance: A quantitative field study. UMI Dissertation Ser- vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9313826.

Turban, D. B., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influences of supervisor liking of a subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordi- nate. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 215-233.

Uhl-Bien, M. K. (1991). Teamwork of the future: An investigation into teamwork processes of professional work teams in knowledge-based organizations. UMI Dissertaton Ser- vices. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 9205408.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1992). An empirical test of the leadership-making model in professional project teams. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 379-387). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P. S., Graen, G. B.. & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Company paternalism and the hidden-investment process: Identification of the “right type” for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 1.5, 414-430.

112 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 1 1999

Vansudevan, D. P. (1993). Developing a model for predicting the career intentions of under- graduate engineering students. UMI Dissertation Services. Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms International, 9329876.

Vecchio, R. P. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200-208.

Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to replicate. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 478485.

Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 4444.51.

Vecchio, R. P. (1993). Self- and supervisor ratings: A dyadic approach. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1. 73-83.

Vecchio, R. P.. & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). Th e vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.

Vecchio, R. P.. Griffeth, R. W., & Horn, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical dyad linkage approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126. 617-625.

Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A 7-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 603-614.

Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1989). Human resource development of Japanese manag- ers: Leadership and career investment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 1, 235-256.

Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G.. Graen, M. & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 217-227.

Wakabayashi, M., Graen. G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1990). The generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis in leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43, 1099- 1116.

Wakabayashi. M., Minami, T., Hashimoto, M., Sano, K., Graen, G., & Novak, M. (1981). Managerial career development: Japanese style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 391-420.

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,487-499.

Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46,1431-1440.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Jqurnal, 40, 82-111.

Weitzel. J. R., & Graen. G. B. (1989). System development project effectiveness: Problem- solving competence as a moderator variable. Decision Sciences, 20, 507-531.

Wiley, N. (1988). The micro-macro problem in social theory. Sociological Theory, 6254-261. Wilhelm, C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993). Attributional conflict between managers

and subordinates: An investigation of leader-member exchange effects. Journal o,f Organizational Behavior, 14, 531-544.

Williams. L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 81, 88-101.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Dyadic leadership: MuItiple views and longitudinal

LMX Theory, Measurement, and Analysis 113

considerations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Manage- ment, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1990). Salesperson performance and managerially controllable factors: An investigation of individual and work group effects. Jorwnal o,f

~~nage~e~~, 16.87-106.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A muftiple levels of analysis approach. i&man Relations, 45, 57.5400.

Yukl. G. A. (1994). ~eaders~~~ in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zalesny. M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater agreement. fugue R~~a~~o~s, 42, 81-96.