the impact of leader-member exchange (lmx) and empowerment … · related to job satisfaction,...

Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) Page 44

10.1515/nybj-2016-0004

The Impact of Leader-member Exchange (LMX) and

Empowerment on Employee Voice Behavior

Simon C. H. Chan

1

Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Davey Yeung2

Hong Kong Nang Yan College of Higher Education, Hong Kong

Published online: 2 June 2016

© Nang Yan Business Journal 2015

ABSTRACT: This study examines the impact of leader–member exchange (LMX) and the

moderating role of empowerment on employee voice behavior. A sample of 314 supervisor-

subordinate dyadic exchanges was collected from a manufacturing firm in Mainland China.

The results provided support the view that LMX and empowerment were both significantly

associated with employee voice behavior. The positive relationship between LMX and

employee voice behavior was stronger when employees received higher levels of

empowerment. Theoretical and managerial implications of the research are discussed.

Keywords: Leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment, employee voice behavior

JEL codes: L53, M54

1 Teaching Fellow, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Email: [email protected]

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing and Management, Hong Kong Nang Yan College of Higher

Education, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/11/20 2:57 AM

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


1. Introduction

There is a large body of leadership literature that examines the quality of leader-follower

relationships (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Tangirala, Green,

& Ramanujam, 2007). The relationship of leader-follower determines the nature of social and

one-on-one reciprocal exchanges between leader and follower. Leader-member exchange (LMX)

illuminates the quality of exchanges between supervisor-subordinate (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Research studies have shown that LMX is positively related to employee attitudes and behavioral

outcomes, such as job performance and job satisfaction (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999;

Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Harris et al. (2009) examined the direct and indirect effects

of LMX and empowerment on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and performance. They

provide an important approach for the examination of the relationship between LMX and

empowerment on employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).

Existing studies have found that LMX and empowerment have direct effects on employee

behaviors (Schriesheim et al., 1999). Studies have also investigated psychological empowerment

as a moderator on the outcomes of supervisor-subordinate relationships (Harris et al., 2009).

However, existing studies have not fully examined the interactive effect of LMX and

empowerment on employee outcomes, such as voice behavior. There is, then, a research gap to

fill, linking LMX and empowerment to employee voice behavior (Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010).

This study uses empowerment as a moderator to examine the relationship between LMX and

employee voice. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to examine the impact of LMX and

empowerment on employee voice behavior. This study extends the existing literature in two

ways. First, it investigates how LMX and empowerment are related to employee behavioral

outcomes. It responds to the call from Harris and colleagues (2009) to examine the impact of

LMX and empowerment on employee job satisfaction. Second, the study adds to the leadership

literature by investigating LMX and empowerment and their relation to employee voice behavior

in a specifically Chinese context.

2. Theory and hypotheses

Leader-member exchange and voice behavior

LMX theory explains the relationship in terms of high to low quality between different leaders

and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High quality exchanges indicate that followers have

better relationships with their leaders (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Such exchanges mean that

followers tend to experience better social support, clearer channels of communication, enhanced

trust, and motivated performance. On the other hand, followers in a low level LMX relationship

have a different experience as evidenced by voice behavior (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Employees

are not willing to speak up if they do not have close relationship with the leader. Social exchange

theory explains high quality relationships between supervisor and subordinates which encourage

better employee outcomes (Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993; Sparrowe & Liden, 2005).

Empirical studies have examined how leadership behaviors are transmitted to employee voice

behaviors (Detert & Burris, 2007; Graham & Van Dyne, 2006; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).

Employees’ voice behavior can challenges and upset the status quo of an organization and its



power holders (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). It is a discretionary provision of information aimed

at improving the organizational and operational functioning of employees (Van Dyne & LePine,

1998). It can be used to promote constructive change in the status quo (Zhou & George, 2001) if

positive in nature.

Hypothesis 1: LMX is positively related to employee voice behavior.

Empowerment and voice behavior

Employee empowerment motivates employees to work by delegating authority from a high level

to the low level in an organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Conger and Kanungo (1988, p. 474) defined empowerment as “a process of enhancing feelings

of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that

foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and

informal techniques providing efficacy information”. Detert and Burris (2007, p. 869) defined

voice as “the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational

functioning which may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its power

holders”.

Considerable research studies have accumulated support on the impact of employee

empowerment and employee performance (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Empowerment

provides employees with intrinsic motivation and allows them to think positively about their role

in the workplace (Spreitzer, 1995). In fact, four main factors are involved: meaning, competence,

self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the value attributed by employees to their own work

goals and standards. Competence is the belief of employees that they are capable of performing

their work tasks. Self-determination refers to employee choice in task selection and completion.

Impact relates to the main strategic intent on the consequences of organization. The four factors

of psychological empowerment have been associated with positive results (Liden et al., 2000).

Employees are motivated in their work when they are empowered. The empowering experience

can help to generate a strong sense of support in an employee which, in turn, means they are

willing to speak up for the organization. Therefore, empowerment is directly associated with

employee voice behavior.

Hypothesis 2: Empowerment is positively related to employee voice behavior.

The moderating role of empowerment

Empirical research has examined the impact of LMX and empowerment (Gao, Janssen, & Shi,

2011; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004) on employee outcomes. Although one empirical study

(Harris et al., 2009) examined the impact of LMX and empowerment on job performance, there

is less work available that deals with possible consequences, such as employee voice. Social

exchange theory holds that the relationships between LMX and empowerment are significantly

related to job satisfaction, performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover

intention (Harris et al., 2009).

The impact of LMX on employee voice behavior alters according to how employees experience

empowerment from top management. Empowerment provides a direct way to motivate

employees to share information and open up lines of communication. Studies have examined


Nang Yan Business Journal (v. 4 no. 1 - 2015) 7

situations to discover when and how LMX determines job satisfaction (Harris et al., 2009).

When employees are permitted to participate in decision-making, the trust relationship between

leader and employee is enhanced. The relationship between LMX and employee voice behaviors

is strong when employees are motivated to express their views. On the other hand, when

empowerment is low, the sharing of information and exchange of resources is likely to be less

effective (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). As such, the relationships between LMX and

employee voice behavior are stronger when employees experience a high level of empowerment.

Hypothesis 3: Empowerment moderates the positive relationship between LMX and employee

voice behavior, such that the positive relationship is stronger when empowerment is higher.

3. Research method

The sample consisted of 314 leader-follower dyadic exchanges from the back office of a

manufacturing firm in Mainland China. The manufacturing firm organizes and divides work to

be done into specific tasks and units within a formal line management system. Two sets of

questionnaires were administered to employees and their immediate supervisors separately. The

authors explained the objective of the study, and explained the procedures for completing the

questionnaire. The questionnaires were coded with an assigned identification number so that the

authors were able to match employees’ questionnaires with their immediate leaders’ evaluations.

Subordinates were asked to rate the items on LMX, empowerment and job satisfaction. Leaders

rated the items on employee voice behavior. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were

instructed to seal the completed questionnaires in envelopes and return them directly to the

researchers on-site. Out of 350 set of questionnaires (350 for immediate leaders; 350 for

employees), 314 usable questionnaires (314 leader-employee dyads) were returned, yielding a

usable response rate of 89.7%. The maximum number of surveys completed by a single leader

was three. The mean age and organizational tenure of the employees were 28.66 and 2.05 years

respectively.

Measures

Leader–member exchange: Leader-member exchange was assessed on a 7-item LMX scale

designed by Liden et al. (1993), Scandura, Graen, and Novak (1986), and Scandura and Graen

(1984) (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Sample items were “I have enough confidence

in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so”

(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) and “How well does your leader understand your job

demands and needs” (1 = not a bit; 5 = a great deal). The Cronbach’s alpha was set at 0.80.

Empowerment: Empowerment as measured by Spreitzer's (1995) 12-item empowerment scale (1

= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “The work I do is meaningful to me.”

The Cronbach’s alpha was set at 0.90.

Employee voice behavior: Van Dyne and LePine (1998) scales was used to measure employee

voice. Leaders’ completed the measure for each employee on supervisory ratings of voice (1 =

strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Sample items from this measure include “This particular

employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group,”



and “This particular employee speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects of changes in

procedures.” Coefficient alpha for the scale was set at 0.86.

Control variables: Gender, organizational tenure, and age were controlled in the analyses. Past

research has suggested or shown these variables to be related to the outcome variable of

employee voice behavior (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Gender was

dummy coded (0 = male, 1 = female). Age and organization tenure were self-reported in years.

4. Data analysis

Descriptive statistics: The means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of all

the key variables are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the research model of gender, age,

organizational tenure, leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment, and employee voice

behavior.

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of measures

Variables

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Gender

.57 .50 --

2 Age

28.66 5.94 -

.23**

--

3 Organizational Tenure

2.05 2.25 -.10 .25** --

4 LMX

3.25 .64 -.03 .03 .12* .80

5 Empowerment

5.04 .87 -

.20**

.24** .17** .44** .90

6 Voice

Behavior

4.59 .82 -.10 .13* .04 .24** .28** .86

Notes: a, n = 314

b The correlation coefficients are significant at * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

c Reliability coefficients appear along the diagonal.



Figure 1: Research framework

Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1 predicts that LMX is positively related to employee voice behavior. Results

indicated that LMX was positively related to voice behavior (β = 0.24, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 1

was supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicts that empowerment is positively related to employee voice behavior.

Results indicated that empowerment was positively related to voice behavior (β = 0.28, p < 0.01).

Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3 predicts that empowerment moderates the positive relationship between LMX and

employee voice behavior, such that the positive relationship is strongest when empowerment is

highest. The moderating role of empowerment was significantly associated with LMX and voice

behavior (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The interaction between

LMX and empowerment predicting job satisfaction and voice behavior were plotted in Figure 2.

Leader-member

Exchange (LMX)

Employee Voice Behavior

Empowerment +

+

+



Table 2: Tests of leader-member exchange, empowerment and employee voice behavior

Variables

Voice Behavior

Control

Variables

Gender -.09 -.09 -.08 -.06

Age .08 .09 .07 .08

Organization

Tenure

.00 -.02 -.03 -.02

Independent

Variables

LMX .24** .11 .09

Moderators .28** .20**

Empowerment

Moderating

Variable

LMX x

Empowerment

.13*

N 314 314 314 314

Df 3 1 1 1

R2 .06 .24 .41 .42

Δ R2 .06 .18 .17 .01

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Vo

ice

Be

hav

ior

LMX

Figure 2: The moderating effect of empowerment on the link between LMX and voice behavior

High

Low Empowerment

High Empowerment

Low High



5. Discussion

This study examines the impact of LMX and the moderating role of empowerment on employee

voice behavior. The results support existing studies showing that the relationship of LMX is

positively associated with employee voice. Empowerment also impacts on the voice behavior of

employees. When LMX and empowerment were involved, employee voice behavior was

enhanced by motivation and the authority conferred by empowerment. The highest levels of

voice behavior resulted when LMX quality was high and empowerment was high. Employees

benefit from relationship bonding with supervisors.

Supervisors should maintain good relationships with subordinates to maintain a high LMX. The

interaction between leader and follower plays an important role in shaping the behavior of

employees in expressing their views in organization. Empowerment can allow employees to

respond to different opinions, suggest new policies, and share information freely. It helps to

explain the effectiveness of LMX in engendering employee voice activities. It is encouraging

that employees feel motivated to provide solutions and suggest improvements.

6. Limitation and suggestion for further study

There are a number of major limitations to this study. The cross-sectional nature of the study

implies that causes may be subject to alternative interpretations. In a longitudinal study, the

measurement of cause and effect at different intervals would enhance the validity of the results.

The data were collected in a manufacturing firm in Mainland China. This raises concerns about

the generalizability of the findings to more domestic work settings and organizational structures

in different cultural contexts. There may be different perceptions of expressive employee voice

behavior in some organizations in certain cultural settings (Detert & Burris, 2007). Another

limitation is demographic in nature: both the personal background of supervisors and

subordinates are homogeneous, i.e. young and short organizational tenure. Future studies should

target a more diverse sample. Finally, further study of the relationship between LMX and

empowerment on employee voice behavior are proposed. Future studies should examine other

psychological constructs in the relationship between LMX and empowerment on employee voice

behaviors, such as trust in a leader.

7. Conclusion

To conclude, leadership research on LMX and employee voice behavior is examined. This study

provides new implications for the impact of LMX on employee voice behavior. It provides

guidelines for future work by reviewing and extending the existing literature on how

empowerment and LMX affect employee voice behavior. The positive relationship between

LMX and employee voice behavior was found to be stronger when employees received higher

levels of empowerment.



References

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and

practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471–482.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behaviour and employee voice: Is the door

really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 869-884.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A

critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11 (3), 618–634.

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of

empowering leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (4), 787-798.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 827–844.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level

multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 219–247.

Graham, J. W., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Gathering information and exercising influence: Two

forms of civic virtue organizational citizenship behaviour. Employee Responsibilities and Rights

Journal, 18 (2), 89-109.

Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and

empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20 (3), 371-382.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship

behaviors: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 269–277.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-

member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal, 47 (3), 368-384.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of

contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationship with big five personality

characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 86 (2), 326-336.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of

psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and

work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 407–416.



Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stillwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development

of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 662-674.

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010) I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee

identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 189-202.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. I. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and

development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 705-725.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange

status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 428-436.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide

autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71 (4), 579-584.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L. & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX)

research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.

Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), 63–113.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 416–427.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level:

A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal, 47 (3), 332-349.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member

exchange and network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (4), 505–535.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the

relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain.

Journal of Management, 23 (5), 679–704.

Tangirala, S., Green, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of

supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2),

309–320.

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects

of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (6),

1189-1203.



Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements empowerment: An “interpretive”

model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 666-681.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of

construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108-119.

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the

expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 682-696.



Appendix

Items of LMX:

1. Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you usually know how satisfied

your leaders is with what you do?

2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?

3. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, what are

the chances that your leader would use his/her power to help you solve problems in your

work?

4. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances

that he/she would “bail me out,” at his/her expense?

5. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if

he/she were not present to do so?

6. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?

7. How well does your leader recognize your potential?

Items of empowerment:

1. The work I do is very important to me.

2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me.

3. The work I do is meaningful to me.

4. I am confident about my ability to do my job.

5. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.

6. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.

7. I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.

8. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.

9. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.

10. My impact on what happens in my work environment is large.

11. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my work environment.

12. I have significant influence over what happens in my work environment.

Items of employee voice:

1. I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this group.

2. I speak up and encourage others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the

group.

3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this group even if my opinion

is different and others in the group disagree with me.

4. I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to this group.

5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this group.

6. I speak up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.


the impact of leader-member exchange (lmx) and empowerment … · related to job satisfaction,...

Documents