The quality of relationships between supervisors and their subordinates has been found to be predictive of subordinate performance. A number of explanatory mechanisms have been proposed, and the frequency and nature of dyadic communication have been posited as contributory. To further explore this potential mechanism, the authors tested the hypothesis that upward influencing communications mediate the relationship between relationship quality, as measured by leader-member exchange (LMX), and supervisor ratings of subordinate performance. In a study involving 107 supervisors, LMX was positively associated with reported frequencies of upward influences delivered as rational argument and negatively associated with ingratiatory and assertive communications. LMX was also positively associated with performance ratings, but this relationship was fully mediated by the frequency of upward influencing tactics, with rational argument being positively predictive of performance ratings and assertiveness being negatively associated with ratings of performance.
BakarA. H.DilbeckK. E.McCroskeyJ. C. (2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader–member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77, 637-656. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499104
2.
BarbutoJ. E.MossJ. A. (2006). Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(3), 30-48. doi:10.1177/107179190601200303
3.
BiselR. S.MessersmithA. S.KelleyK. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 128-147. doi:10.1177/0021943612436972
4.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
BormanW. C.MotowidloS. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In SchmittN.BormanW. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BoteroI. C.Van DyneL. (2009). Employee voice behavior interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 84-104.
7.
CogliserC. C.SchriesheimC. A.ScanduraT. A.GardnerW. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452-465. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.010
8.
CooperC. D.ScanduraT. A.SchriesheimC. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475-493.
9.
CooperW. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244.
10.
DansereauF.GraenG. B.HagaW. 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. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
11.
DelugaR. J.PerryJ. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influence behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239-252.
12.
DelugaR. J.PerryJ. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group & Organization Management, 19, 67-86. doi:10.1177/1059601194191004
13.
DieneschR. M.LidenR. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
14.
DochertyP.BoudD. J.CresseyP. (2006). Lessons and issues for practice and development. In BaudD. J.CresseyP.DochertyP. (Eds.), Productive reflection at work, learning for changing organizations (pp. 193-207). London, England: Routledge.
15.
DockeryT. M.SteinerD. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group & Organization Management, 15, 395-413. doi:10.1177/105960119001500405
16.
DuarteN. T.GoodsonJ. R.KlichN. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.
17.
DulebohnJ. A.BommerW. H.LidenR. C.FerrisR. L. B. G. R. (2012). A met-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280
18.
DuneganK. J.Uhl-BienM.DuchonD. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance: The moderating effects of task characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 275-285.
19.
FairhurstG. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
20.
FarmerS. M.MaslynJ. M.FedorD. B.GoodmanJ. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17-42. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701)
21.
FerrisG. R.HochwarterW. A.DouglasC.BlassF. R.KolodinskyR. W.TreadwayD. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resource systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 65-127.
22.
FixB.SiasP. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 35-44.
23.
FreseM.FayD. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6
24.
FurstS. A.CableD. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 453-462. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453
25.
GeertshuisS. A.MorrisonR.Cooper-ThomasH. (2013). The influential subordinate: An oxymoron or a daily necessity? In MorrisonR.Cooper-ThomasH. (Eds.), Relationships in organizations: A work psychology perspective (pp. 74-106). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
GerstnerC. R.DayD. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
27.
GraenG. B.CashmanJ. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In HuntJ. G.LarsonL. L. (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University.
28.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (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, 219-247.
29.
GriffinM. A.NealA.ParkerS. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347.
30.
HanT. Y.WilliamsK. J. (2008). Multilevel investigation of adaptive performance: Individual- and team-level performance. Group & Organization Management, 33, 657-684.
31.
HarrisK. J.WheelerA. R.KacmarK. M. (2011). The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 271-281.
32.
HendersonD. J.LidenR. C.GlibkowskiB. C.ChaudhryA. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517-534. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003
33.
HigginsC. A.JudgeT. A.FerrisG. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106. doi:10.1002/job.181
34.
IliesR.NahrgangJ. D.Morgeson. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
35.
JohnsonJ. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. In BarrickM. R.RyanA. M. (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 83-120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
KacmarK. M.CarlsonD. S.BrattonV. K. (2004). Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviours in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 309-331. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.09.002
37.
KacmarK. M.ZivnuskaS.GullyS. M.WittL. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 764-772.
38.
KassingJ. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58-70. doi:10.1080/08824090009388751
39.
KassingJ. W. (2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison of perceived competence in upward dissent strategies. Communication Research Reports, 22, 227-234.
40.
KimJ.MacDuffieJ. P.PilF. K. (2010). Employee voice and organizational performance: Team versus representative influence. Human Relations, 63, 371-394. doi:10.1177/0018726709348936
41.
KipnisD.SchmidtS. M.WilkinsonI. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440
42.
KroneK. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship effects on subordinates’ upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 1-15. doi: 10.1080/01463379209369816
43.
KolodinskyR. W.TreadwayD. C.FerrisG. R. (2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of an expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human Relations, 60, 1747-1777. doi:10.1177/0018726707084913
44.
LidenR. C.GraenG. B. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
45.
LidenR. C.SparroweR. T.WayneS. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47-119.
46.
LidenR. C.WayneS. J.StilwellD. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662
47.
ManzoniJ.BarsouxJ. (2002). The set-up-to-fail syndrome. How good managers cause great people to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
49.
ScanduraT. A.GraenG. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428
50.
SchriesheimC. A.CastroS. L.CogliserC. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.
51.
SchriesheimC. A.CastroS. L.YammarinoF. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.
52.
SchriesheimC. A.HinkinT. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.246
53.
ScudderJ. N.GuinanP. J. (1989). Communication competencies as discriminators of superiors’ ratings of employee performance. Journal of Business Communication, 26, 217-229. doi:10.1177/002194368902600302
54.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
55.
SparroweR. T.LidenR. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
56.
TepperB. J.BrownS. J.HuntM. D. (1993). Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1903-1919. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01072.x
57.
ThackerR. A.WayneS. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739-756. doi:10.1177/014920639502100408
58.
TreadwayD. C.FerrisG. R.DukeA. B.AdamsG. L.ThatcherJ. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848-855. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.848
59.
VarmaA.TohS. M.PichlerS. (2006). Ingratiation in job applications: Impact on selection decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 200-210.
60.
VonkR. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior toward superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 849-864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.849
61.
WaldronV. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 289-306. doi: 10.1080/03637759109376231
62.
WayneS. J.FerrisG. 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.
63.
YuklG. (2007). Best practices in the use of proactive influence. In CongerJ. (Ed.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 109-128). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
64.
YuklG.MichelJ. W. (2006). Proactive influence tactics and leader member exchange. In SchriesheimC. A.NeiderL. L. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 87-104). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
