Leader-member exchange (LMX) refers to the relationship quality between leader and follower. Mostly, LMX is rated individually and related to outcomes. In this study, the focus is on consensus of LMX within a team. However, a high consensus in followers’ perception of their leader does not necessarily mean that performance is in line with company expectations. Consequently, it is proposed that high work values moderate the relationship between consensus and performance. The hypotheses were tested using a sample of employees in German banks and insurance companies. Results indicate some support for the proposed relationship between consensus in contribution and job satisfaction as well as the relationship between consensus in contribution and commitment. In addition, moderating effects of work values emerged. This indicates that consensus with respect to LMX is influential in organizations and suggests that leaders should strive toward having a similar relationship with all followers.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
3.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
4.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (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.
5.
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.
6.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
7.
Graen, G. B. (2003). Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as special case of role making in work organizations. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. I, pp. 145-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
8.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
9.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
10.
Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991-1004.
11.
Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., & Weeden, K. (2003). Leader-member relations and social identity. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power—Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 18-33). London: Sage.
12.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
13.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effect of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697-708.
14.
Mohr, G., Müller, A., & Rigotti, T. (2005). Normwerte der Skala Irritation: Zwei Dimensionen psychischer Beanspruchung[Norm values of the scale irritation: Two dimensions of psychological strain]. Diagnostica, 51, 12-20.
15.
Mohr, G., Rigotti, T., & Müller, A. (2005). Irritation—Ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychischer Beanspruchung im Arbeitskontext. Skalen- und Itemparameter aus 15 Studien [Irritation—An instrument for the assessment of psychological strain in the working context. Scale and item parameters from 15 studies]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 49, 44-48.
16.
Oegerli, K. (1985). Arbeitszufriedenheit. Versuche einer qualitativen Bestimmung [Job satisfaction. A qualitative approach]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bern, Switzerland.
17.
Paul, T., & Schyns, B. (2004). Mehrdimensionale Skala zur Erfassung des Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-MDM nach Liden & Maslyn, 1998)—Übersetzung (Multidimensional Scale for the Assessment of Leader-Member Exchange [LMX-MDM according to Liden & Maslyn, 1998]—Translation). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente Version 8.00 (ZUMA-Information system. Electronic handbook of social sciences assessment instruments, Version 8.00). Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, http://www.gesis.org/methodenberatung/zis/.
18.
Sanders, K. (2004). Playing truant within organizations: Informal relationships, work ethics, and absenteeism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 136-155.
19.
Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (in press). The effect of consensus in perception of the supervisor on cooperative behaviour of employees: An application of self-categorisation theory. Personnel Review.
20.
Schaarschmidt, U., & Fischer, A. (1996). AVEM, Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens- und Erlebensmuster (Manual) [AVEM, Work related behaviour and experience pattern (Manual)]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Swets Testservices.
21.
Schmidt, K.-H., Hollmann, S., & Sodenkamp, D. (1998). Psychometrische Eigenschaften und Validität einer deutschen Fassung des “Commitment”—Fragebogens von Allen und Meyer (1990) [Psychometric properties and validity of a German version of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) commitment instrument]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19, 93-106.
22.
Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organisational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219-241.
23.
Schyns, B., Paul, T., Mohr, G., & Blank, H. (2005). Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader-memberexchangein a German workingcontext to findingsin the US. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 1-22.
24.
Schyns, B., & Wolfram, H.-J. (2004). The relationship between leader-member exchange and performance as rated by leaders and followers, unpublished manuscript, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
25.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
26.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 207-226.
28.
Wolfram, H.-J., & Schyns, B. (2004, September 26-30). Leader-member exchange und Ergebnisse von Führung (Leader-Member Exchangen and outcomes of ledership). Paper presentedat the 44thCongress of the German Psychological Society, Göttingen, Germany.
29.
Wollgarten, I. (2004). Der Einfluß der dyadischen Beziehungsqualität zwischen Führungskraft und Mitarbeiter auf die Beziehungsqualität der Mitarbeiter untereinander (The impact of the dyadic relationship quality betwen leader and member on the relationship quality among members). Unpublished master’s thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, Germany.
