USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Integrating leader-member exchange and organizational justice

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Integrating leader-member exchange and organizational justice why justice depends on relationship quality
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Jackson, Erin M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
LMX
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Interpersonal justice
Attachment style
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to integrate research on Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and organizational justice by proposing and evaluating plausible interactions between LMX and the various dimensions of organizational justice. In addition, this study contributes to the sparse literature on antecedents to LMX by including three previously unexamined antecedents, which consist of basic intra- and interpersonal motivations (i.e., attachment, identity, and regulatory focus), that are under-researched compared to personality and demographic variables. Data were collected from 150 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Results revealed several significant LMX by justice interactions and indicated that interdependent identity levels (relational and collective) and promotion regulatory focus are positively related to LMX quality. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Erin M. Jackson.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 85 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001992187
oclc - 315888414
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002366
usfldc handle - e14.2366
System ID:
SFS0026684:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Integrating Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Justice: Why Justice Depends on Relationship Quality by Erin M. Jackson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Russell E. Johnson, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Kristen Salomon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 27, 2008 Keywords: LMX, procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal jus tice, attachment style, self-identity, regulatory focus, congruence Copyright 2008, Erin M. Jackson

PAGE 2

Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Terry and Tammy Jackson, who have provided me with constant faith, love and support, To my late grandfather, Gerald Buquoi, whose belief in me throughout the years has b een a perpetual source of strength, And to all my friends and family, for their love and encouragement.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the members of my thesis committee, Drs. Walter Borman and Kristen Salomon, for improving this project by sharing with me their expertise and valuable insights. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Russel l Johnson, my thesis advisor, for his continuous guidance, support, and mentorship. Thank you also to those who made this study possible through their participation.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi Chapter OneIntroduction .................................................................................................. 1 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory ............................................................. 4 LMX and Its Antecedents ........................................................................... 6 Leader and Follower Attachment Style ………………………….. 8 Leader and Follower Identity …………………………………… 10 Leader and Follower Regulatory Focus ………………………… 12 LMX and Its Outcomes ............................................................................. 14 Organizational Justice ........................................................................................... 17 Integrating Organizational Justice with LMX ...................................................... 19 Justice by LMX Interactions ..................................................................... 20 Chapter TwoMethod ....................................................................................................... 24 Participants ............................................................................................................ 24 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 25 Measures ............................................................................................................... 25 Demographics ........................................................................................... 25 Member LMX ........................................................................................... 25 Leader LMX.............................................................................................. 26 Organizational Justice ............................................................................... 26

PAGE 5

ii Attachment Style ....................................................................................... 27 Self-Identity Level .................................................................................... 27 Regulatory Focus ...................................................................................... 28 Job Satisfaction ......................................................................................... 29 Organizational Commitment ..................................................................... 29 Turnover Intentions ................................................................................... 29 Work Performance .................................................................................... 30 Chapter ThreeResults ..................................................................................................... 31 Data Screening and Descriptive Statistics ............................................................ 31 Control Variables .................................................................................................. 32 Analysis Strategy .................................................................................................. 33 Hypotheses 1-3: Motivation-Based Congruence and LMX .................................. 37 Relationships between LMX and Work Criteria .................................................. 39 Mediation of LMX on Motivational Variable-Work Criteria Relationship.......... 41 LMX by Justice Interactions ................................................................................. 45 Chapter FourDiscussion ................................................................................................. 53 Importance of LMX .............................................................................................. 53 Antecedents of LMX............................................................................................. 54 Attachment Style ....................................................................................... 54 Self-Identity Level .................................................................................... 55 Regulatory Focus ...................................................................................... 57 Mediating Role of LMX ....................................................................................... 58 LMX and Justice ................................................................................................... 59

PAGE 6

iii Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusion ..................................................... 61 References ......................................................................................................................... 63 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 75 Appendix A ........................................................................................................... 76 Appendix B ........................................................................................................... 82

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1. Means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations among study variables. 34 Table 2. Correlations of demographic variables with LMX. 36 Table 3. Test of Edwards’ assumptions for identity level. 40 Table 4. Test of Edwards’ assumptions for regulatory focus. 40 Table 5. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between attachment style and work criteria. 42 Table 6. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between identity level and work criteria. 43 Table 7. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between regulatory focus and work criteria. 44 Table 8. Interactive effects of leader LMX and distributive justice on work criteria. 46 Table 9. Interactive effects of member LMX and distributive justice on work criteria. 46 Table 10. Interactive effects of leader LMX and procedural justice on work criteria. 48 Table 11. Interactive effects of member LMX and procedural justice on work criteria. 48 Table 12. Interactive effects of leader LMX and interpersonal justice on work criteria. 51 Table 13. Interactive effects of member LMX and interpersonal justice on work criteria. 51

PAGE 8

v List of Figures Figure 1. Scandura’s (1999) proposed model. 21 Figure 2. Proposed model of the interactive effects between LMX and justice on subordinates’ work criteria. 21 Figure 3. LMX by distributive justice interaction. 47 Figure 4. LMX by procedural justice interactions. 50 Figure 5. LMX by interpersonal justice interactions. 52

PAGE 9

vi Integrating Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Justice: Why Justice Depends on Relationship Quality Erin M. Jackson ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to integrate research on Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and organizational justice by proposing and evaluating plausible intera ctions between LMX and the various dimensions of organizational justice. In addition, this study contributes to the sparse literature on antecedents to LMX by including thr ee previously unexamined antecedents, which consist of basic intraand interpersona l motivations (i.e., attachment, identity, and regulatory focus), that are under-re searched compared to personality and demographic variables. Data were collected fr om 150 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Results revealed several significant LMX by j ustice interactions and indicated that interdependent identity levels (relational and col lective) and promotion regulatory focus are positively related to LMX quality. Implicat ions and directions for future research are discussed.

PAGE 10

1 Chapter OneIntroduction Leadership is a universal phenomenon that has been an important area of inquiry throughout history, addressed by scholars such as Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius. It i s currently one of the most extensively researched topics in organizational psychol ogy, and substantial empirical evidence has shown the importance of effective leaders hip for employee and organizational well-being (Bass, 1990). However, this abundance of attention has produced numerous definitions and models to describe and classify leadership. In his review of leadership theory and research, Bass (1990) broadly defines leadership as “an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the members” (p. 19). The majority of leadership research has focused on the characteristics a nd behaviors of leaders, with relatively less emphasis placed on relationships betw een leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Early trait theories focus ed on what characteristics were associated with effective leadership. Although s ome traits of effective leaders were identified (e.g., dominance and intelligence; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986), they did not appear to be universal across all leaders (Stogdil l, 1948; Mann, 1959). Thus, research began to focus on what leaders do rather than who they are Several groups of researchers at Ohio State (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), University of Michigan (Kahn & Katz, 1953), and Harvard (Bales, 1954) attempted to define behavioral theories in order to prescribe certain actions leaders could enact to be

PAGE 11

2 effective, such as displaying consideration and initiating structure. However, bec ause of researchers’ apparent inability to identify the universal characteris tics and behaviors of effective leaders, attention turned to situations in which particular behavior s are needed. These contingency theories were more flexible because they took into account the interplay between the situation and the individual. Examples include Fiedler’s (1967; 1971) contingency theory, House’s (1971) path-goal theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) decision process theory. While the aforementioned streams of research provide valuable insight into how leaders are able to influence and structure the behaviors of their followers the role of the follower has been largely ignored until more recently (Lord & Brown, 2004). Several theories have responded to this omission by addressing the importance of the role of the follower and the leader-follower relationship, including cognitive approaches (e .g., Lord, Foti, & DeVader (1984), identity-based approaches (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), and relationship-based approaches (e.g., Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). Cognitive approaches to leadership take both leader and follower cognitions into account by recognizing that each has their own implicit theory of leadership, which affects both whether leaders are seen as such by their subordinates (Eden & Leviatan, 1975) and leaders’ perceptions of subordinate performance (Green & Mitchell, 1979). Identity-based approaches emphasi ze that the working self-concept, the activated portion of the self-concept that guides acti on and understanding on a moment-to-moment basis (Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994), is integral in the leadership process as leaders can activate, create, and influence aspec ts of the subordinate’s working self-concept (Lord & Brown, 2004). Dansereau’s Vertical D yad

PAGE 12

3 Linkage first addressed the importance of the leader-follower relationship by demonstrating that leaders do not employ an average leadership style, but instead de velop differentiated relationships with their subordinates (Dansereau, et al., 1975). Wi th evidence of variation in followers’ perceptions of the same leaders, leadermember dyads instead of individual leaders became the focus of analyses, and the theory evolved int o Leader-Member Exchange (LMX; Graen, et al., 1982). LMX postulates that the qua lity of leader-follower relationships is predictive of outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ). The present study adopts LMX theory as a general model for understanding leadership. Leadership is a social process, and because of the important economic and social exchange processes within leader-member dyads it is useful to conside r LMX. According to Graen and Scandura (1987) one of the requirements for development of high-quality relationships is that each party must see the exchange as rea sonably fair and thus, organizational justice is also important when considering the leadershi p process. Hollander (1978) called for rethinking LMX, including what constitutes “fair e xchange in leadership” (p. 71), and more recently Scandura (1999) highlighted how justice might operate within an LMX framework. Despite calls by researchers, littl e empirical research has examined LMX and organizational justice together (for exceptions, see L ee [2000], Pellegrini [2006], and Sanchez [2006]). The goal of the present research is to integr ate research on LMX and organizational justice by proposing and evaluating differ ent plausible models that incorporate both. Additionally, I also examine novel antecedent s of LMX.

PAGE 13

4 The proposed research is important for several reasons. First, in line with recent attempts, it contributes to the leadership literature by focusing on the role o f the follower and leader-follower relationships, which have traditionally received little at tention. Second, it addresses the need to integrate research on leadership and organizati onal justice. Third, it contributes to the sparse literature on antecedents to LMX by including three previously unexamined antecedents. These antecedents include basic intraand interpersonal motivations, namely attachment, identity, and regulatory focus, w hich are under-researched compared to personality and demographic variables. It will lat er be argued that leader and follower congruence on these motivations contributes to relationship quality. Finally, data will be collected from both supervisors and subordinates, which serves two purposes. First, critics have pointed out that many so-called studies of LMX are conducted at the level of the individual rather than the dy ad, yet it is the latter level that is most appropriate (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). By studying leader–follower congruence, I examine the dyad directly. Second, c ollecting data from multiple sources reduces threats of same source bias and self-genera ted validity (see Harrison & McLaughlin, 1996; Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996). In the following sections I first review the LMX and organizational justice lite ratures, and then propose ways in which they are expected to interact. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory The fundamental assumption of LMX theory is that within work groups leaders form different types of relationships with their subordinates. The theory recog nizes the importance of the follower by examining the quality of the leader-follower re lationship as opposed to behaviors or traits of individual leaders or followers. In other words, dyads

PAGE 14

5 are the basic unit of analysis in LMX theory rather than leader characteri stics or behaviors. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) define LMX as a social exchange of psychologi cal benefits or favors between leaders and members. According to LMX theory, fol lowers can be part of the leader’s inor out-group, and relationships between leaders and followers can be characterized as being low or high quality based on the extent of m utual trust, respect, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In the early stages leader-member relationships are transactional quid pro quo exchanges characterized by purely contractual economic exchanges, formal rol e relations, and reciprocal compensation. Dyads that do not progress past this stage are conside red low quality LMX. These low quality relationships are characterized by downw ard influence, role-defined relations, and a lack of shared fates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Over time, leaders establish closer relationships with a few key members, who become part of the leader’s in-group. Such dyads, which advance into more mature relationships, are characterized by partnership and focus on larger mutual int erests rather than self-interest and are considered high quality LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) It is important to consider the leader-member dyad as this is a central relationship i n the organizational context, and the quality of this relationship has been shown to relate to many important attitudinal and behavioral work outcomes. For example, in Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) review, they cite numerous examples of significant positive relationships between relationship quality and subordinates’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and citizenship behavior. However, equivocal results have been found with some outcomes, as discussed below.

PAGE 15

6 LMX and Its Antecedents Although several models of LMX antecedents have been proposed, Gerstner and Day (1997) noted that little cumulative knowledge exists and stated the need for additional empirical research on the development of LMX. Dienesch and Liden (1986) introduced a model of LMX development, wherein leader and member characteristic s influence their initial interactions. In the early stages of relationships, le aders test their members by assigning difficult work assignments, and members make attribut ions about the leader’s assignments (e.g., “I am being used” or “The leader is tryi ng to help my professional development”) and respond behaviorally. The leader then makes attributi ons about the member’s behavior. Graen and Scandura (1987) proposed an alternative model of LMX development. Referred to as the role-making model, it describes the LMX developmental process as consisting of three phases. In the first phase, role taking leaders communicate roles to their member by making requests and assigning t asks. Leaders assess members’ motivation and potential based on their behavioral response s. In the second phase, role making the nature of the relationship is defined. In this stage leaders usually provide members with opportunities to complete unstructured task s. If members accept this opportunity, then relationships develop into high-quality exchange s. In the third phase, role routinization the quality of the relationship stabilizes and both members of the dyad share clear mutual expectations. Based on these models a num ber of antecedent variables have been empirically tested, which have primarily centered around member characteristics and the fit between leader-member characteris tics (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

PAGE 16

7 Member characteristics examined as LMX antecedents include member competence and performance, personality, and upward influence behavior. Substantial empirical evidence suggests that member competence predicts LMX quality. The estimated population correlation from Gerstner and Day’s (1997) meta-analysi s is .28 based on 15 independent samples. Bauer and Green (1996) proposed that member competence interacts with leader delegation, such that greater competenc e leads to more delegation, and lower levels of competence lead to less delegation. Over time, t hese interactions influence trust levels and the quality of exchange that develops betw een a leader and her or his subordinate. Empirical research has also shown support for membe r personality as an antecedent to LMX quality in that negative affectivity negatively relates to LMX (Day & Crain, 1992), whereas extraversion (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994) and locus of control (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994) have positive relationships with LMX quality. Support has also been found for member upward influence behavior an attempt by the subordinate to secure a desired behavior from the supervisor, as an antecedent to L MX (e.g., Deluga & Perry, 1991; Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). In addition to member characteristics, the fit between leaders and members has been examined as an antecedent of LMX, including perceived and actual similarit y and mutual liking. For example, research has shown that although simple demographic characteristics do not predict LMX quality, relational demography may (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Empirical support for relational demography––the degree to which leaders and subordinate are similar on demographic variables including age, gender, and ethnicit y (Graen & Cashman, 1975)––as an antecedent to LMX has been mixed. Similarity in terms of personality variables including positive affectivity (Bauer & Green, 1996) and

PAGE 17

8 extraversion (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994) has been shown to predict LMX. Bauer and Green (1996) suggest that when dyad members have similar outlooks due to similar personalities, leaders may view members more positively and trust them mor e, leading to a higher quality relationship. Likewise, Turban and Jones (1988) reported that subordinates who perceived their leaders as more similar to themselves had gre ater trust and confidence in their leaders. In addition, support has been found for liking (Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Liden et al., 1993; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) and perceived similarity (Liden et al., 1993; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994) as predictors of high-quality LMX. The present research extends previous findings on congruence-based variables as ant ecedents of LMX by focusing on basic motivation-based variables, which have received les s attention than personality-based variables. Specifically, the three previousl y unexamined dimensions of similarity I will focus on are attachment style, identity level, and regulatory focus. Leader and Follower Attachment Style. Although attachment style was originally proposed as a model to explain attachment in infant-parent relationships (Bowlby, 1979), researchers have since applied this framework to adult relationships (Hazan a nd Shaver, 1987), including those at work (e.g., Berson, Dan, & Yammarino, 2006; Hazen & Shaver, 1990; Sumer & Knight, 2001). According to attachment theory individuals interpret the behaviors of significant others by relying on internal working models of rela tionships, which vary in their degree of perceived security. A secure attachment style is characterized by having trust and comfort with closeness, a positive sense of w orthiness, and expectations that others are accepting and supportive (Hazen & Shaver, 1987). Research has shown that in work contexts individuals with secure attachment st yles have

PAGE 18

9 a more positive approach to work, are more likely to develop satisfying relat ionships with coworkers, and are less likely to fear failure and rejection from coworkers ( Hazen & Shaver, 1990). In contrast, those with insecure attachment styles (anxious-ambival ent and anxious-avoidant) have difficulty with interpersonal relationships. Workers wi th an anxious-ambivalent attachment style reported a desire to work with others. However, they were more likely to feel misunderstood and underappreciated and reported that interpersonal concerns interfered with work productivity (Hazen & Shaver, 1990). Workers with an anxious-avoidant attachment style reported more dissatisfaction with coworkers and were more likely to report that work interferes with their relati onships and health (Hazen & Shavers, 1990). Although individuals with insecure attachment style s differ in their approaches to relationships, both insecure attachment styles ar e related to negative interpersonal outcomes as insecure individuals tend to be defensive and destructive in conflicts (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995). Keller (2003) made several propositions about the effects of interactions between leader and subordinate attachment styles on the quality of their relationshi p. Consistent with extant literature on leader-member personality similarity, she proposed that outcomes would be optimal when leader and member attachment styles are congruent Secure attachment on the part of both the leader and follower should lead to a high quality interaction because followers are receptive and attentive to the leade r and the leader in turn is responsive and supportive of the follower. An anxious-ambivalent match between the leader and follower should also result in a high-quality exchange as both members of the dyad satisfy the dependency needs of the other. An anxious-avoidant match should result in satisfactory outcomes as members of the dyad allow eac h other to

PAGE 19

10 coexist without unwelcome intrusions from the other. In addition, those who are a match on secure attachment style may be even more likely to form high-quality LM X because those with secure attachment styles tend to form satisfying interper sonal relationships. In contrast, because expectations and needs vary across different attachment st yles, leader and follower mismatches are likely to negatively impact LMX outcomes. The pre sent research utilizes Carver’s (1997) framework, which distinguishes among four a ttachment styles, instead of the three addressed by Keller (2003). These are secure, anx iousavoidant, and two types of anxious-ambivalent (ambivalent-worry and ambivalent-merger). I expect a similar pattern of results for both anxious-ambivalent a ttachment styles. These arguments suggest the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: Leader-member attachment style congruence will be positively related to LMX quality Hypothesis 1b: Leader-member congruence on secure attachment style will have more favorable effects than leader-member congruence on anxious-ambivalent or anxious-avoidant attachment styles. Leader and Follower Identity. Similarity in terms of self-identity is also likely to be important in the development of LMX. Self-concept refers to the storehouse of individuals’ knowledge about themselves, including their goals, values, and social roles This self-relevant knowledge structure gives meaning to information, organ izes memories, informs perceptions of oneself and others, and regulates cognition and behavior (Lord & Brown, 2004; Markus, 1977; Oyserman, 2001). Although the self-concept contains all self-relevant knowledge, humans are limited information proces sors, and therefore, only subsets of this information are available, depending on the identity level that is most important. In particular, researchers (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001) have identified three levels

PAGE 20

11 of identity: collective, relational, and individual. People with strong collective identities define themselves in terms of organizational groups and pursue shared goals (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). Those with collective identities tend to view themselves in terms of the group prototype and evaluate themselves favorably on aspects of the self that ar e similar to the group (Lord & Brown, 2004). People with relational identities are concerned with how others perceive them and their relations with specific others (Brewer & Ga rdner, 1996). Employees with relational identities tend to use reflected appraisals, or perceptions of how others see them, as an indicator of belongingness and a proxy for access to social resources (Tice & Baumeister, 2001). People with individual identities differentiate themselves from others and pursue personal goals (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Their comparative abilities and outcomes are likely to be the critical fa ctor in interpersonal regulation and the way in which they gain meaning (Lord & Brown, 2004). Drawing on previous research suggesting that similarity in terms of persona lity is conducive to high quality relationships, it is likely that leaders and members who ar e similar in terms of their chronic identities will develop higher quality rela tionships. Such dyads are expected to have high quality relationships because both parties have overlapping goals and values. At a general level, when identities are congr uent, each partner in the dyad verifies the identity of the other, which is psychologically c omforting and satisfies the need for being correctly understood by others (Swann, 1999). For example, if both the leader and member share individual identities they are likely to be satisfied because they allow each other to focus on their individual outcomes. If the leader and member share relational identities they are likely to be sati sfied because they

PAGE 21

12 both place priority on the quality of their relationship and form a strong affective bond If both share a collective identity they are also likely to be satisfied as they are likely to share a focus on contributing to the success of their work group or organization. In addition, those who share a relationalor collective-identity level may be e ven more likely to form high-quality LMX because of their heightened concern with int erpersonal relationships. In cases of mismatches, however, LMX quality is likely to suffer. For exa mple, a member who has a relational-level identity and a leader who has an individual-le vel identity may lead to the development of a low quality relationship because the membe r may seek to form a strong affective bond with the leader while the leader wil l be focused on his/her own outcomes and unconcerned with developing a bond with the member. In this case, the member may be dissatisfied with the leader’s lack of concer n for the relationship, while the leader may be irritated perceiving that the member is interfering with his or her personal goals. As another example, a member who has an individual-level identity paired with a leader who has a collective-level identity may also lead to a low quality exchange. In this situation the member may perceive the leader as limiting his or her personal professional development, while the leader may be frustrated that the member does not share his or her commitment to the success of the organization. Based on the above reasoning I hypothesize: Hypothesis 2a: Leader-member identity-level congruence will be positively related to LMX quality Hypothesis 2b: Leader-member congruence on interdependent (i.e., relational and collective) identity levels will have more favorable effects than leader-member congruence on the individual level

PAGE 22

13 Leader and follower regulatory focus. Another congruence-based variable that is likely to have an impact on LMX quality is regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997; 1998). Regulatory focus concerns the type of regulatory goals an individual chooses to pur sue. Those who are promotion-focused strive to achieve an ideal self and eagerly pursue success (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002). Promotion-focused individuals show high motivation for tasks framed in terms of promotion (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998) and focus on strategies aimed at achieving desired outcomes (Higgins, Roney, Cr owe, & Hymes, 1994). In contrast, those who are prevention-focused strive to avoid negative outcomes and vigilantly avoid losses or failures. These individuals show high motivati on when tasks are framed in terms of prevention (Shah et al., 1998) and focus on strategie s that will prevent negative outcomes (Higgins et al., 1997). Interestingly, there is increasing evidence for a phenomenon known as regulatory fit whereby motivation, evaluations, and performance, among other things, are most favorable when a person’s regulatory focus matches that of the environment or cue s within the environment (e.g., Higgins, 2000; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Regulatory fit effects occur between people as well. For example, Loc kwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002) showed that individuals who are promotion-focused are most inspired by role models who exemplify an ideal self and highlight strategies for achieving success, whereas prevention-focused individuals are most inspired by role model s who exemplify a feared self and emphasize strategies for avoiding failure. This evidence that individuals are most receptive to role models who fit their regulatory goals sugg ests that in exchanges between leaders and followers, leader-member regulatory-f ocus congruence may foster higher quality relationships than leader-member incongruence on r egulatory

PAGE 23

14 focus. However, it is unclear whether a match on promotion or prevention focus would have more favorable effects. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis and re search question: Hypothesis 3: Leader-member regulatory focus congruence will be positively related to LMX quality Research Question: Does leader-member congruence on promotion or prevention focus have more favorable effects? LMX and Its Outcomes Consequences of LMX have received considerably more attention than its antecedents. Extant research has shown LMX to predict many work-relate d outcomes, both attitudinal and performance-related. Previously examined outcomes include subordinates’ satisfaction with one’s job and supervisor, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, citizenship behaviors, and performance ratings. However, equivocal relationships have sometimes been found with outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997), such as commitment, turnover intentions, and objective ratings of performance. A meta-analysis by Gerstner and Day (1997) reported an estimated correc ted correlation of .50 between LMX and job satisfaction based on 33 independent samples. However, several studies have not found strong support for a relationship between LMX and satisfaction. For example, using a multidimensional measure of LMX Liden and Maslyn (1998) found that only one of these dimensions (contribution) was significantly related to job satisfaction. In addition, Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found that out-group members were less satisfied than in-group or middle-group members, but middleand in group members did not significantly differ in levels of job satisfaction.

PAGE 24

15 Research has generally shown LMX to be positively related to supervisor satisfaction and Gerstner and Day’s (1997) meta-analytic estimate of this relationship was .71 based on 27 independent samples. However, several studies (e.g., Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Liden & Graen, 1980) found no significant relationship between LMX quality and supervisor satisfaction. Empirical evidence demonstrates a positive relationship between LMX and affective organizational commitment Meyer and Allen (1991) defined affective organizational commitment as an employee’s “emotional attachment to, identifi cation with, and involvement in the organization.” Those with high levels of affective commitment stay with their organization because they want to do so. Several studies have found a significant positive relationship between affective commitment and LMX quality (e.g., Duchon, et al., 1986; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). However, several studies employing structural equation modeling qualified this simple correlation. For example, Green, Anderson, and Shivers’ (1996) model supported an indirect effect of LMX on organizational commitment through satisfaction, and both Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) and Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) found that perceived organizational support dominated LMX in the prediction of commitment. Although actual turnover has not consistently been found to relate to LMX quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997), substantial research has shown turnover intentions relate to LMX quality. The corrected estimate from Gerstner and Day’s (1997) metaanalysis based on 8 samples was -.31. Empirical evidence generally shows a positive relationship between supervisory ratings of performance and LMX quality. Gerstner and Day (1997) report meta-analytic

PAGE 25

16 estimates of .55 (k=12) and .30 (k=30) for the relationship between performance ratings and leader and member perceptions of LMX, respectively. However, findings reg arding objective performance are less consistent, with some studies showing no relationship between LMX and objective performance indices (e.g., Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), and others showing a significant positive relationship between the two (e.g, Graen, N ovak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). Meta-analytic evidence strongly supports a positive relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and LMX. Citizenship behaviors refer to those behaviors which are not formally a part of the task requirements of a job but support the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the cri tical catalyst for tasks to be accomplished (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). In their meta-analysis Ilies, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) estimate this relationship to be .37 for overall citizenship performance, and .38 and .31 for OCBI (OCB directed at specific others) and OCBO (OCB directed at the organization), respectively. In addition, u sing structural equation modeling techniques Wayne, et al. (1997) and Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) showed that LMX was positively related to OCB. Based on previous research and the arguments stated above, I hypothesize: Hypothesis 4: LMX will be positively related to (a) satisfaction with one’s job and (b) satisfaction with one’s supervisor, (c) citizenship behaviors, (d) affecti ve organizational commitment, and (e) task performance LMX will be negatively related to (f) turnover intentions Hypothesis 5: LMX quality mediates effects of leader-member attachment styl e congruence on work criteria Hypothesis 6: LMX quality mediates effects of leader-member identity leve l congruence on work criteria

PAGE 26

17 Hypothesis 7: LMX quality mediates effects of leader-member regulatory focus congruence on work criteria As previously stated, LMX has been found to relate to important outcome variables in some cases, but not others. In response to these mixed findings, Scandura (1999) stated the necessity of considering what constitutes “fair exchan ge in leadership” in order to account for the different findings. Because organizational justice communicates information about the quality of economic and social exchange relationships, and LMX concerns relationship-based exchanges between leaders and members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), integrating the two literatures enhances our understanding of both domains (Tyler & DeCremer, 2005). Organizational Justice Organizational justice refers to employees’ perceptions of fairness in the workplace (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Justice deals with how two or more actors relate to one another in exchange situations (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Exchange processes can be either economic or socioemotional, and because of the exchange processes integral to leader-member relationships it is important to consider subordinates’ perceptions of justice and their relationship with the quali ty of LMX and important work-related outcomes. Organizational justice generally encompasses three types of fairness: distributive, procedural, and interactiona l (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Early research involving organizational justice was primarily concerned w ith distributive justice Distributive justice concerns whether or not the actual distribution of an outcome is perceived as fair. The concept of distributive justice is derived from Adam’s (1964) equity theory, in which individuals compare their ratios of inputs

PAGE 27

18 (perceived contributions to the exchange) and outcomes (rewards received from the exchange) to those of others. Input-outcome ratios that are equivalent are associ ated with feelings of satisfaction. Conversely, situations perceived as inequitable ar e dissatisfying, and individuals are likely to experience distributive injustice (Cropanzano & Gree nberg, 1997). Extensive research has demonstrated that distributive justice is relate d to several important organizational outcomes. A meta-analysis by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) showed that distributive justice is significantly related to both behavioral a nd affective outcomes. Significant positive relationships were found between dist ributive justice and positive outcomes including work performance, citizenship behaviors, job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, affective commitment, and leader-m ember exchange quality. Significant negative relationships were found between distributive jus tice and counterproductive behaviors and turnover intentions. As the emphasis shifted from the results of reward allocation to processes by which rewards are allocated, greater attention was paid to procedural justice Procedural justice deals with one’s sense of whether or not the “methods, mechanisms, and processes” by which an outcome was determined were fair (Folger & Cropa nzano, 1998, p. 26). Thibaut and Walker (1975) distinguished between two dimensions of procedural justice. Process control refers to the ability to voice one’s views during a proc edure, whereas decision control refers to the ability to influence the actual outcome i tself. Leaders may have ultimate control over decisions; however, the process by which t hose decisions are made can affect perceptions of justice. Perceptions of procedur al fairness have been found to mitigate the negative effects of unfavorable outcomes (Brockner & Weisenfeld, 1996). If rules and procedures are deemed fair, it is likely that s ubordinates

PAGE 28

19 believe that although immediate outcomes may not be desirable, over the long run they should receive what they believe they deserve. Cohen-Charash and Spector’s (2001) meta-analysis showed that procedural justice was positively related t o many favorable organizational outcomes, including work performance, citizenship behaviors, job and supervisor satisfaction, affective and normative commitment, and leader-mem ber exchange quality. In contrast, procedural justice was negatively related to counterproductive behaviors, continuance commitment, and turnover intentions. Researchers have also examined interactional justice (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986). Interactional justice focuses on the quality of the interpersonal treatment pe ople receive when procedures are implemented and the fair dissemination of information (Bies & Moag, 1986). Aspects of the communication process, such as politeness, honesty, and respect, are particularly important (Tyler & Bies, 1990). Meta-analyt ic evidence from Cohen-Charash and Spector’s (2001) suggests that interactional justice is posit ively related to work performance, job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, affe ctive commitment, and leader-member exchange quality, and negatively related to continuance commitment and turnover intentions. Integrating Organizational Justice with LMX Because of the economic and social exchange processes inherent in leader-member relationships, integrating research on LMX and organizational justice is important. Despite Hollander’s (1978) call for rethinking LMX, including fair exchanges in leadership, and Scandura’s (1999) more recent theorizing about how justice might operate within an LMX framework, little empirical research has attem pted to integrate these two domains. The goal of the present research is to integrate research on LMX and

PAGE 29

20 organizational justice by proposing and evaluating different plausible interact ions between LMX and the various dimensions of organizational justice. Scandura (1999) proposed a model of how LMX and justice are related. According to her model, in the early stages of a leader-member relationship di stributive, procedural and interactional justice contribute to the decision to become part of the i ngroup or out-group. Once the in-group/out-group decision has been made, LMX positively affects outcomes through perceptions of procedural and distributive justi ce. Specifically, procedural justice is proposed to mediate the relationship betwee n LMX and outcomes for those reporting high levels of LMX, while distributive justice is propos ed to mediate the relationship between LMX and outcomes for those reporting low levels of LMX (see Figure 1). While this model calls attention to the concurrent exami nation of LMX and justice, a problem inherent in this conceptualization of the relationship betwe en LMX and justice is the mediating role of justice. According to this model LMX qua lity causes perceptions of justice, such that high quality LMX causes perceptions of procedural justice and low quality LMX causes perceptions of distributive just ice, which then impact more distal work outcomes. However, in contrast to her illustrated model, Scandura’s reasoning that is presented in the text of her article actually s pecifies a moderated model rather than a mediated one. Therefore, rather than assessing a me diated model, I will test the more plausible moderated model, such that interactions betw een LMX and justice predict outcomes. Justice by LMX Interactions A more feasible conceptualization of the interface of LMX and justice is that the two constructs interact with one another (see Figure 2). It is possible that the e mphasis

PAGE 30

21 Figure 1 Scandura’s (1999) proposed model. Figure 2 Proposed model of the interactive effects between LMX and justice on subordinates’ work criteria. LMX Justice Perceptions Subordinate Work Criteria LMX Antecedents: Attachment style fit Self-identity level fit Regulatory focus fit

PAGE 31

22 that members place on different types of justice is a function of the quality of the relationship they share with their leader, a sentiment that is shared by Sca ndura (1999). Low quality LMX relationships are characterized as more transacti onal in nature. In these relationships interactions are centered around short-term quid pro quo exchanges, and subordinates are likely concerned about immediate outcomes. Subordinates do not necessarily believe that things will be fair in the long run and are most concer ned about immediate fairness in exchange and unconcerned about the process by which outcomes are determined. In addition, for subordinates in low quality LMX relationships indi vidual concerns are likely to be most salient. Interestingly, these concerns tha t exemplify low quality LMX relationships parallel those of distributive justice, which involves the fairness of the distribution of resources, such as promotions, rewards, and evaluations. Following this reasoning, perceptions of distributive justice should be most important for subordinates with low quality LMX. High quality LMX relationships are more transformational in nature and are characterized by mutual trust, respect, and obligation. Because of the high qualit y of their relationship with their supervisors subordinates are likely to be less concerned wi th immediate results and more concerned with long term outcomes. Even if the immedia te distribution of outcomes is perceived as unfair, their faith in the process should lea d them to believe that in the long run outcomes will be fair. In the context of LMX, procedural justice would concern whether the process by which leaders determined the alloca tion of resources (e.g., promotions, rewards, evaluations) was fair. Therefore, perc eptions of procedural justice should be more important when subordinates have high quality LMX.

PAGE 32

23 In addition, in the context of LMX, interactional justice concerns how fair members deem the interpersonal treatment that they receive from their s upervisor to be. Because individuals in high quality relationships are more sensitive to socioemoti onal outcomes, such as respect and dignity, it seems likely then that interactional jus tice will be most important for such individuals. On the other hand, issues pertaining to interactional justice should be less relevant for members who have low quality LMX. As long as economic outcomes are favorable (e.g., high distributive justice), socioem otional outcomes should be less salient for members with low quality LMX. Therefore, perceptions of interactional justice should be more important when subordinates have high quality LMX. To summarize, distributive justice should have the most positive effects when LMX is low, whereas procedural and interactional justice should have the most posit ive effects when LMX is high (see Figures 3-5). Hypothesis 8: Distributive justice and LMX interact, such that distributive fairness has stronger effects on the work outcomes of members with low quality (vs. high quality) LMX. Hypothesis 9: Procedural justice and LMX interact, such that procedural fairness has stronger effects on the work outcomes of members with high quality (vs. low quality) LMX. Hypothesis 10: Interactional justice and LMX interact, such that interactional fairness has stronger effects on the work outcomes of members with high quality (vs. low quality) LMX.

PAGE 33

24 Chapter TwoMethod Participants Participants comprised working undergraduate students at a large research university and their work supervisors. A concerted effort was made to recruit nontraditional students who are older and have more work experience than the typical undergraduate by distributing surveys in early morning and late night classe s. Five hundred surveys were distributed, and 276 completed subordinate surveys and 164 completed supervisor surveys were returned, resulting in a response rate of 55% for subordinates and 33% for supervisors. Of these, there were 150 matched pairs (30% overall response rate). After examining data closely for cases in which t he same person may have completed both the subordinate and supervisor surveys (e.g., similar handwriting), the sample was reduced to 140 dyads. Subordinates were mostly female (73.6%) and majority white (71.7%) and Hispanic (14.3%). The average age of subordinates was 23.55 ( SD = 6.26), and they worked an average of 28.09 hours per week ( SD = 8.43). Subordinates had worked in their current organization an average of 29.92 months ( SD = 31.06) and an average of 19.44 months ( SD = 23.75) with their current supervisor. Supervisors were majority male (54%) and white (78.6%), and they worke d an average of 44.43 hours per week ( SD = 11.05). The majority of supervisors ranged from 30-49 years of age. Participants worked in a variety of industries including re tail or service, medical, government, professional, and technical industries.

PAGE 34

25 Procedure Participants were asked to complete a survey packet, which included measures of LMX quality, motivation (i.e., attachment, identity, and regulatory focus), jus tice perceptions, and the focal work outcomes (i.e., job and supervisor satisfaction, affecti ve organizational commitment, and turnover intentions). The survey also included demographic information, including age, gender, ethnicity, job tenure, and tenure with supervisor. Participants were also instructed to give their supervisor a sur vey packet to complete, which included demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity), measu res of LMX, motivation, and ratings of task and citizenship performance. Supervisors return ed completed surveys via a self-addressed and stamped envelope provided by the resea rcher. Measures All attitudinal constructs except leader and member LMX were measured w ith 5point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). A complete list of items for the subordinate and supervisor surveys can be found in Appendices A and B, respectively. Demographics Demographic information was collected from both supervisors and subordinate including gender, age, ethnicity, and tenure. Member LMX The LMX-7 (Graen et al., 1982) was used to assess subordinate perceptions of LMX. Previous research has shown that it is highly correlated with lengthie r measures (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and suggested that the LMX-7 provides the soundest psychometric properties of available LMX measures (Gerstner & Day, 199 7). In their

PAGE 35

26 meta-analysis Gerstner and Day (1997) reported a mean alpha of .89 for this meas ure. A sample item is “I have a good working relationship with my supervisor.” In the present study the coefficient alpha for this scale was .92. Leader LMX Because leader and member perceptions of LMX differ (average sample-we ighted correlation between leader and member LMX from meta-analysis is .29 from G erstner & Day, 1997), and previous research has emphasized the importance of measuring LMX from both leader and member perspectives (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994), leader perceptions of LMX were measured using a revised form of the LMX-7 (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993). Gerstner and Day (1997) reported an average alpha of .78 for this measure. A sample item is “I have an effective working relationship with my direct report.” The coefficient alpha of this scale for the present study was .82. Organizational Justice Dimensions of organizational justice were measured using Colquitt’s (2001) scales. Distributive justice was assessed using four items, which address the extent to which subordinates perceive their work outcomes as fair. A sample item is “My pa y and other work outcomes reflect the effort I have put into my work.” Procedural justi ce was assessed using seven items, which concern the extent to which subordinates perceive the system that determines pay and other work outcomes as fair. A sample item i s “I have been able to express my views and feelings during those procedures.” Interper sonal justice was measured using Colquitt’s interpersonal scale, which consists of four items that assess the extent to which the leader treats the subordinate with respec t and dignity. A sample item is “[My supervisor] treats me in a polite manner.” Johnson, Selenta and

PAGE 36

27 Lord (2006) reported coefficient alphas of .93, .87, and .91 for the distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice subscales, respectively. In the present st udy the coefficient alphas for these scales were .97, .88, and .90 for distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice, respectively. Attachment Style Adult attachment style was measured using Carver’s (1997) measure. The five item avoidance scale assessed anxious-avoidant attachment. A sample item is “ I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very close.” The three item ambivalence-w orry and three item ambivalence-merger scales were used to measure anxious-a mbivalent attachment. Sample items are “I often worry that my partner doesn’t rea lly love me” (ambivalence-worry) and “I have trouble getting others to be as close as I want them to be” (ambivalent-merger). The three item security scale was used to measur e secure attachment. A sample item is “When I’m close to someone it gives me a sense of security about life in general.” Carver (1997) reported alpha coefficients of .76, .69, .73, and .59 for these scales, respectively. In the present study the coefficient alpha s for these scales were .83, .83, .72, and .80 for subordinate secure, anxious-avoidant, ambivalent-worry, and ambivalent-merger, respectively, and .89, .84, .75, and .87 for supervisor ratings, respectively. Scores on these scales were transformed into a categorical va riable by standardizing participants’ scores on all four attachment styles and assi gning them to the attachment style with the highest z-score. Self-Identity Level Leaders’ and subordinates’ trait levels of self-identity were assess ed using the Levels of Self-Concept Scale developed by Selenta and Lord (2005). Comparative

PAGE 37

28 identity, which is comprised of five items emphasizing one’s abilities, perform ance, and general standing above that of others, wasused to measure the individual level. A sa mple item is “I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my coworkers.” Concern for others, composed of five items emphasizing sharing benevolent relations hips with other individuals, was used to measure the relational level. An example item is “Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is impor tant to me.” Group achievement focus, which is comprised of five items emphasizing motivation based on the welfare of one’s group, was used to measure the collective level. A sa mple item is “I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I’m not t he main reason for its success.” Johnson, et al. (2006) reported coefficient alphas of .82, .84 and .73 for the individual, relational and collective subscales, respectively. In the pr esent study the coefficient alphas for these scales were, .81, .80, and .77 for subordinate ratings, and .84, .82, and .80 for supervisor ratings of individual, relational, and collective identity level, respectively. Regulatory Focus Promotion and prevention regulatory foci was measured using Johnson and Chang’s (2007) work-based regulatory focus scale. Six items each are used to m easure promotion ( = .82; e.g., “In general, I think about positive aspects of my work”) and prevention ( = .81; e.g., “I am focused on failure experiences while at work”) focus. In the present study the coefficient alphas for these scales were .83 and .82 for subor dinate ratings and .86 and .83 for supervisor ratings of promotion and prevention focus, respectively.

PAGE 38

29 Job Satisfaction Subordinates’ job satisfaction was measured using the three-item scale develope d by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979). A sample item is “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” Spector et al. (2006) reported a reliability coeffici ent of .90 for this scale. In the present study the coefficient alphas for this scale w as .89. Supervisor Satisfaction Supervisor satisfaction was measured using four items from the supervision subscale of Spector’s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey. A sample item is “My s upervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.” Spector (1985) reported a coefficient alpha of .82. In the present study the coefficient alphas for this scale was .78. Organizational Commitment Subordinates’ levels of commitment to their organization were measured using Meyer and Allen’s (1997) revised 6-item subscale for affective commitme nt. A sample item assessing affective commitment is “My organization has a great dea l of personal meaning for me.” Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (2006) reported a coefficie nt alpha of .89 for this subscale. In the present study the coefficient alphas for this scale w as 81. Turnover Intentions Employee intentions to leave the organization were measured using a three ite m scale from Camman, et al. (1979). A sample item is “I often think about quitting my job with my present organization.”Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen (2002) reported an alpha reliability of .79 for this scale. In the present study the coefficient alpha s for this scale was .86.

PAGE 39

30 Work Performance Leaders’ ratings of subordinate task performance were assessed using Williams and Anderson’s (1991) seven item scale. A sample item is “[My subordinate] adequat ely completes assigned duties.” Williams and Anderson (1991) reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.91 for this measure. Furthermore, ratings of OCB will also be collected using Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure, which includes seven it ems that assess OCBI (i.e., those directed at specific individuals) and six ite ms that assess OCBO (i.e., those directed at the organization) subscales. A sample OCBI item is “I/my subordinate help(s) others who have been absent.” A sample OCBO item is “I/my subordinate adhere(s) to informal rules devised to maintain order.” Williams and Anderson (1991) reported internal consistency reliabilities of 0.88 and 0.75 for OCBI and OCBO, respectively. OCB ratings will be collected from both supervisors and subordinates. In the present study the coefficient alphas for these scales wer e .80, .71, and .89 for task performance, OCBOs, and OCBIs, respectively. 1 1 One item, “Adheres to informal rules devised to ma intain order,” was not used in calculating the scal e score for OCBO as deleting this item substantially improved scale reliability.

PAGE 40

31 Chapter ThreeResults In order to identify leader-member dyads, leader and member responses were matched based upon identical numerical codes on both surveys in the dyad. Specifical ly, the leader and member responses were merged to create a dataset with each leadermember dyad representing one case in the dataset. This dataset was used for all subsequent analyses. Data Screening and Descriptive Statistics First, data were inspected for violations of assumptions of correlation and regression analyses. Data are assumed to be normally distributed when utiliz ing Pearson’s product moment correlation. To check this assumption, normality was veri fied by examining skewness and kurtosis values of each variable. On the whole, variables ha d acceptable skewness and kurtosis values. The data was also examined for the pre sence of outliers. However, all outliers were plausible values for each scale and wer e therefore not removed. When conducting regression analysis independence, linearity, normality of residuals, and homoscedasticity of residuals are assumed. Because of the natur e of this data collection independence is assumed. The data were checked for violations of these assumptions using the procedures outlined in Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). Normality of residuals was tested using q-q plots. Visual inspection of these plot s indicates normality of residuals for all variables. Linearity was exa mined by plotting the residuals against each measured independent variable and against predicted value s. On the whole, scatterplots appeared linear, providing support for this assumption.

PAGE 41

32 Homoscedasticity of residuals was assessed using a modified Levene tes t comparing each independent variable to member and leader LMX, and each of the work criteria. Given the robustness of regression analysis to this violation, analyses were conducted wit hout transforming the data. Scale scores were created for each of the study variables. After revers e scoring appropriate items, scale scores were created by taking the average res ponse across items for each measure. For cases in which an individual item response was missing, the average scale score was computed excluding the missing item. Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 1. Coefficient alpha reliabil ities are displayed along the diagonal. Control Variables Although simple demographics have not been shown to predict LMX quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997) age, gender, ethnicity, and tenure were examined prior t o focal analyses as potential control variables. Using the correlation matrices, e ach demographic variable was examined as a potential control variable. In order to preserve sta tistical power only demographic variables that were significantly related to study v ariables were controlled for during hypothesis testing. Table 2 displays these relationships In addition, because similarity in terms of demographic characteristics has sometim es been shown to relate to exchange quality (e.g. Graen & Cashman, 1975) variables were c reated to indicate similarity in terms of gender and ethnicity. These variables we re then correlated with supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader member exchange quality, and none of the correlations were significant. None of the demographic variables were significantly correlated with supervisor perceptions of LMX, and only subordinat e age

PAGE 42

33 was significantly correlated with subordinate perceptions of LMX (r = -.23 p <.05). However, while this correlation is statistically significant, it was not dee med practically significant, and therefore was not used as a control variable in subsequent analyse s. 2 Analysis Strategy Hypotheses 1a and 1b, regarding the relationship between leader-member attachment style congruence and LMX quality, were tested using independe nt samples t tests. Hypotheses 2 and 3, regarding relationships between leader-member congrue nce on identity level and regulatory focus and LMX quality, were tested using Edwa rds’ (1994) polynomial regression method to determine whether a congruence effect existed. This method involves regressing the outcome in question on the following variables: X (subordinate standing on congruence variable; e.g., relational identity), Y (supervisor standing on congruence variable; e.g., relational identity), W (dummy variable where 1 = X Y ; and 0 = X < Y ), W X (product term of W and X ), and W Y (product term of W and Y ). Edwards outlines five assumptions that must be met in order to use absolute difference scores. First, the unstandardized beta weights for X and Y must be equal in magnitude and opposite in sign. Second, the unstandardized beta weights for W X and W Y must be equal in magnitude and opposite in sign. Third, all beta weights must be significant, except that of W Fourth, the unstandardized beta weight for W X must be twice the magnitude and opposite in sign of that of X Finally, the F value for the full regression model must be significant. To test these assumptions, both supervisorand subordinate-rated LMX were each regressed on X Y W W X and W Y in five separate models (one model for individual, relational, and collective identity, and promotion and 2 Analyses conducted with subordinate age as a contr ol variable produced the same pattern of results.

PAGE 43

34 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations among study variables MSD 1234567891011121314 LMX 1. Leader 4.42 0.56 (0.82) 2. Member 4.12 0.75 .43** (0.92) Justice 3. Procedural 3.45 0.81 .26** .44** (0.88) 4. Distributive 3.29 1.29 .25** .30** .62** (0.97) 5. Interpersonal 4.44 0.67 .28* .59** .23** 0.12 (0.90) Member Attachment Style 6. Secure 4.08 0.65 0.06 .25** .30** 0.15 .18* (0.83) 7. Avoidant 3.73 0.90 .18* .28** .19* 0.12 .17* .33** (0.83) 8. Amb-Worry 2.22 0.95 -0.16 -.19* -.29** -.25** -0.13 -0.07 -.22** (0.72) 9. Amb-Merger 2.02 0.80 -.18* -0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.10 0.10 -0.14 .29** (0.80) Leader Attachment Style 10. Secure 4.06 0.84 .23** 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.12 .21* 0.01 0.01 -0.14 (0.89) 11. Avoidant 3.77 0.81 .24** -0.05 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.07 -0.05 0.03 .55** (0.84) 12. Amb-Worry 2.15 0.99 -.25** -0.10 -0.02 -0.10 -0.05 -0.09 -0.01 0.14 0.01 -0.05 -.28** (0.75) 13.Amb-Merger 1.95 0.86 -0.13 0.03 0.10 -0.06 -0.07 0.02 -0.01 0.05 0.16 -.20* -.34** .41* (0.87) Member Self-Identity 14. Individual 3.40 0.86 -0.02 0.07 -0.07 -0.07 0.10 0.16 -0.13 .22* .28** 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.02 (0.81) 15. Relational 4.63 0.44 .17* .40** .27** 0.13 .32** .29** .35** -0.05 -0.08 0.02 -0.06 -0.07 -0.02 -0.05 16. Collective 4.31 0.55 .17* .39** .29** 0.13 .34* .21* .18* -0.06 -0.13 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Leader Self-Identity 17. Individual 3.14 0.98 0.05 -0.03 -0.12 -0.13 -0.05 0.06 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 .17* 0.07 .20* .21* 0.14 18. Relational 4.61 0.47 .35* 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.00 0.03 -0.06 -0.15 .36** .25** 0.01 -0.08 0.12 19. Collective 4.53 0.48 .34** 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.11 -0.05 -0.02 -0.06 0.01 0.12 .31** -0.09 -0.10 0.15 Member Reg Focus 20. Promotion 4.09 0.63 -0.02 .20* .37** .26** 0.11 0.14 0.13 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 -.21* 0.14 -0.02 0.01 21. Prevention 2.47 0.85 -0.02 0.07 -0.09 -0.03 0.09 -0.11 -0.16 0.16 .26** 0.01 0.02 -0.08 0.05 0.14 Leader Reg Focus 22. Promotion 4.47 0.57 .25** 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.15 -.17* -0.14 0.01 23. Prevention 2.43 0.92 -0.06 0.07 0.05 -0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06 0.01 -.18* -0.16 -0.16 0.14 .33** 0.00 Outcomes 24. Job sat 4.00 0.98 .26** .49** .65** .48** .31** .19* .25** -0.14 -0.01 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.04 25. Super sat 4.40 0.67 .34** .64** .28** 0.16 .73** 0.16 .20* -.22* -.17* 0.03 0.01 -0.06 0.01 0.12 26. Org commit 3.11 0.85 .34** .36** .59** .47** .25** .20* .23** -0.13 -0.13 0.07 -0.05 -0.13 -0.04 -0.07 27. Turnover int 2.76 1.26 -.17* -.21* -.33** -0.32 -.18* -0.09 -.23** 0.07 0.13 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 0.07 0.09 28. Task perf (sup) 4.51 0.60 .51** 0.16 0.11 0.11 .24** 0.07 0.01 -0.08 -0.12 0.10 0.06 -0.10 -0.10 -0.12 29. OCBO (sup) 4.42 0.65 .32** 0.14 -0.03 0.01 .25** 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 -0.10 0.02 0.10 -.18* -.22* -.17* 30. OCBI (sup)4.270.71.56**.29**.30*0.13.30**0.110. 15-0.12-.19*.20*0.09-0.14-0.14-0.13

PAGE 44

35 (Table 1continued) 15161718192021222324252627282930 (0.80) .51** (0.77) -0.12 -0.15 (0.84) -0.04 -0.08 .13* (0.82) 0.03 0.08 .17* .48** (0.80) .23** .49* -0.09 -0.02 -0.01 (0.83) 0.03 -.17* -0.06 0.10 0.05 -.26** (0.80) -0.05 0.07 0.12 .26** .45** .18* -0.08 (0.86) 0.11 -0.03 .17* 0.01 -0.15 -0.07 0.09 -.36** (0.83) .29** .353** -0.10 0.10 0.07 .39** -0.09 0.07 -0.10 (0.89) .30** .326** -0.05 0.16 0.10 0.12 -0.06 0.07 -0.02 .31** (0.78) 0.13 .31** -0.08 .19* 0.06 .40** -0.08 .21* -0.13 .55** .21* (0.81) -0.12 -0.16 0.11 -0.13 0.02 -0.16 .18* -0.08 0.07 -.40** -.27** -.44** (0.86) -0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.07 -0.03 -0.03 0.16 -0.13 0.06 .24* 0.11 -0.12 (0.80) -0.03 0.07 -0.10 -0.10 0.06 0.00 -0.09 .20* -.26** -0.02 .21* -0.05 -0.05 .68** (0.71) 0.13.19*-0.070.080.150.13-0.05.21*-0.15.21*.27**0.1 6-0.05.66**.56**(0.89) Note : N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs; p < .05; ** p < .01. Coefficient alphas are presented in parentheses along diagonal.

PAGE 45

36 Table 2. Correlations of demographic variables with LMX. Note : N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs; p < .05; ** p < .01. prevention foci). If Edwards’ assumptions are met, then a congruence structure exists and the dependent variable can be regressed on the absolute difference of X and Y variables. If they are not met, then the use of absolute difference scores is inappropriate and I examined the separate direct effects instead. Hypothesis 4, regarding relationships between perceptions of LMX quality and work criteria, was tested by examining bivariate correlations of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of LMX with each work criterion. Hypotheses 5-7, regarding the mediating role of LMX in the relationship between congruence on motivational variables and work criteria, were tested using Baron a nd Kenny’s (1986) procedures for testing mediation. According to these guideline s, three assumptions must be met. First, the independent variable (motivational variable) is significantly related to the mediator (supervisor or subordinate LMX). Secon d, the independent variable (motivational variable) is significantly related to the criterion variable (work outcome). Third, the mediator (supervisor or subordinate LMX) is significantly related to the criterion variable (work outcome). Finally, the relationship Member LMXLeader LMX Demographics 1. Member age -0.07 -0.23** 2. Leader age 0.00 0.06 3. Member gender -0.13 -0.16 4. Leader gender 0.04 0.07 5. Member ethnicity -0.04 -0.07 6. Leader ethnicity -0.04 0.03 7. Member org. tenure 0.02 -0.14 8. Relationship tenure 0.10 -0.07

PAGE 46

37 between the independent variable (motivational variable) and the criterion vari able (work outcome) is significantly reduced when the effects of the mediator variabl e (supervisor or subordinate LMX) are controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Hypotheses 8-10, regarding the interactive effects of LMX and justice perc eptions on work criteria, were tested using moderated hierarchical regression. Separa te sets of analyses were conducted using subordinates’ and supervisors’ perceptions of LMX. F irst, each of the work criteria was regressed on the justice type of interest (di stributive, procedural, interpersonal) and LMX perception of interest (leader, member) in St ep 1. In Step 2, the justice by LMX interaction term was entered. Main effect terms were centered, and the centered values were used to calculate interaction terms (Cohe n, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Where significant, interactions were plotted using values that were one standard deviation above and below the predictor means. Hypotheses 1-3: Motivation-Based Congruence and LMX Independent samples t tests were used to test Hypotheses 1a and 1b to determine whether a congruence effect existed for attachment style. Supervisors ’ and subordinates’ attachment style scores were converted to z scores and each participant was assigned to the attachment style with the highest z score. Subsequently, dyads were categorized as either a match or a mismatch on attachment style. Results indicated that thos e who were mismatched on attachment style had higher quality member-rated LMX ( M = 4.20, SD = .70) than those who were matched on attachment style ( M = 3.88, SD = .82), t (137) = 2.31, p < .05. Results were similar for leader-rated LMX, where mismatched dyads reported higher quality LMX ( M = 4.48, SD = .53) than matched dyads ( M = 4.26, SD = .60), t(137) = -2.04, p < .05. Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were not supported.

PAGE 47

38 Although attachment style congruence did not lead to higher quality LMX, I ex amined whether a match on secure attachment style led to higher quality relationshi ps than a match on other attachment styles. There was no significant difference in member LMX for secure matches ( M = 4.16, SD = 1.02) versus other matches ( M = 3.81, SD = .77), t (37) = 1.06, ns, and no significant difference in leader LMX for secure matches ( M = 4.46, SD = .64) versus other matches ( M = 4.21, SD = .59), t (37) = 1.06, ns To test Hypotheses 2a and 2b, Edwards’ polynomial regression method was used to determine whether a congruence effect existed for each identity level ( individual, relational, collective). Specifically, separate analyses were conducte d for each identity level and for supervisor and subordinate perceptions of LMX. Edwards’ criteria for using absolute difference scores were not met. Therefore, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were not supported. However, there did appear to be direct relationships between identity level a nd LMX. Results indicated that subordinate ( = .24, p < .05) and supervisor ( = .42, p < .01) relational identity level were significant predictors of supervisor perce ptions of LMX. In addition, supervisor collective identity ( = .39, p < .01) was a significant predictor of supervisor perceptions of LMX. Subordinate relational identity ( = .68, p < .01) significantly predicted subordinate perceptions of LMX. Subordinate collec tive identity ( = .53, p < .01) also significantly predicted subordinate perceptions of LMX. Results of these analyses are shown in Table 3. To test Hypothesis 3a and the research question, Edwards’ polynomial regression method was used to determine whether a congruence effect existed for each regulatory focus type (promotion, prevention). Unfortunately, Edwards’ criteria for using a bsolute difference scores were not met. Although Hypothesis 3a was not supported, it does

PAGE 48

39 appear that regulatory focus contributes to LMX because supervisor promotio n focus ( = .26, p < .01) significantly predicted supervisor perceptions of LMX, and subordinate promotion focus ( = .23, p < .05) significantly predicted subordinate perceptions of LMX. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. Relationships between LMX and Work Criteria Hypotheses 4a-f, regarding relationships between perceptions of LMX quality and seven work criteria, were tested by examining bivariate relationships be tween supervisor and subordinate perceptions of LMX and each of the work criteria. Supervisor ( r = .26, p < .01) and subordinate ( r = .49, p < .01) perceptions of LMX were both significantly, positively related to subordinate job satisfaction, providing support for hypothesis 4a. Supervisor ( r = .34, p < .01) and subordinate ( r = .64, p < .01) perceptions of LMX were both significantly, positively related to subordinates’ satisfaction with their supervisor in support of Hypothesis 4b. Supervisor ( r = .56, p < .01) and subordinate ( r = .29, p <.01) perceptions of LMX were significantly, positively related to supervisor rat ed citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals, and supervisor perceptions of LMX were significantly, positively related to supervisor rated citizenship behaviors di rected toward the organization ( r = .32, p < .01), partially supporting Hypothesis 4c. Supervisor ( r = .34, p < .01) and subordinate ( r = .36, p < .01) perceptions of LMX were both significantly related to subordinate affective organizational commitm ent, supporting Hypothesis 4d. Supervisor perceptions of LMX were significantly, positively rela ted to supervisor rated task performance ( r = .51, p < .01), in partial support of Hypothesis 4e. Supervisor ( r = -.17, p < .05) and subordinate ( r = -.21, p < .05) perceptions of LMX

PAGE 49

40 Table 3. Test of Edwards’ assumptions for identity level. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 4. Test of Edwards’ assumptions for regulatory focus. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Member LMXLeader LMXMember LMXLeader LMXMember LMXL eader LMX Step 1 Member ID level (X) .06 -.02 .68** .24* .63** .15 Leader ID level (Y) -.03 .03 .09.42**.03.39** F .40 .24 13.03** 12.55** 12.41** 10.68** R 2.01 .00 .16.16.15.14 Step 2 X .18 -.10 1.15*.23.76**-.03 Y -.09 -.08 -.27.45**-.11.42** W -.22 -.23 .28-.45.13-.16 W*X -.37 -.06 -.50-.09-.24.16 W*Y .33 .42** .64 .21 .17 .23 F 1.77 4.21** 1.74.52.37.79 R 2.04.09 .03.01.01.02 Collective Identity Individual IdentityRelational Identity Member LMXLeader LMXMember LMXLeader LMX Step 1 Member reg focus (X) .23* -.06 .06-.01 Leader reg focus (Y) .06 .26** .05-.04 F 2.94 5.03** .59.27 R 2.04.07 .01.00 Step 2 X .36 -.24 .01.12 Y .01 .43* .16.11 W .23 .09 -.30.17 W*X -.06 .36 -.17.18 W*Y -.21 -.53* -.05.14 F .53 1.77 .87.07 R 2.01.04 .02.00 Prevention Regulatory Focus Promotion Regulatory Focus

PAGE 50

41 were significantly, negatively related to subordinate intentions to turnover, support ing Hypothesis 4f. Mediation of LMX on Motivational Variable-Work Criteria Relationship Hypothesis 5, that LMX would mediate the relationship between attachment styl e congruence and work criteria, was not supported because attachment style congruence was not significantly related to any of the work criteria. Hypotheses 6 and 7, that LMX would mediate the relationship between congruence on self-identity/regulatory f ocus and work criteria, were not tested because Edwards’ (1994) assumptions for Hypotheses 1 -3 were not met. However, I examined the mediating role of LMX for relationshi ps between the direct effects of motivation variables and work criteria. Following Bar on and Kenny’s (1986) procedures I determined cases in which the independent variable (leader and member motivational variable) is significantly related to the mediator (s upervisor or subordinate LMX), the independent variable (leader and member motivational variabl e) is significantly related to the criterion variable (work outcome), and the medi ator (supervisor or subordinate LMX) is significantly related to the criterion var iable (work outcome). I used regression to determine whether the relationship between the independent variable (leader and member motivational variable) and the criterion var iable (work outcome) is significantly reduced when the effects of the mediator var iable (supervisor or subordinate LMX) are controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Results indicated that LMX mediated the relationship between member relational identi ty supervisor satisfaction. See Tables 5-7 for results.

PAGE 51

42 Table 5. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between attachment style and work criteria. Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Member secure .07 .11 .08 -.05 .04 .01 -.02 Member avoidant .23** .06 .15 -.26 -.03 -.03 .11 Member amb-worry -.09 -.10 -.03 .00 -.03 .03 -.02 Member amb-merger .03 -.70 -.08 .11 -.06 -.07 -.09 Leader secure .04 -.03 .09 .01 .04 -.04 .14 Leader avoidant .07 .03 -.12 .02 -.01 .04 -.04 Leader amb-worry .09 -.03 -.13-.09-.04-.07-.09 Leader amb-merger .09 .04 .02.12-.03-.10-.03 F 1.96 2.00 2.04*1.25.601.222.01* R 2.11.11 .11.07.04.07.11 Member secure .00 .05 .06-.03.07.01-.01 Member avoidant .13 -.02 .09-.21-.08-.07.03 Member amb-worry -.02 -.03 .01-.03-.02.05.01 Member amb-merger .01 -.11 -.06.10-.01-.05-.05 Leader secure -.04 -.09 .04.06-.01-.08.08 Leader avoidant .12 .08 -.12.01-.06.02-.08 Leader amb-worry .15 .03 -.07-.14.04-.02.00 Leader amb-merger .06 .02 .00.14-.05-.11-.05 Member LMX .61** .54** .24*-.22-.07.07.06 Leader LMX .12 .07 .33*-.23.63**.34**.66** F 19.36** 38.74** 8.77**2.2623.47**7.32**25.96** R 2.21.34 .11.03.26.10.26 Task performanceOCBOOCBI Job satSuper sat Aff org commitTurnover intent Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstanda rdized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01.

PAGE 52

43 Table 6. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between identity level and wor k criteria. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstanda rdized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Member individual .00 .09 -.12 .14 -.11 -.14* -.16* Member relational .34 .29* -.10 -.09 -.14 -.16 .06 Member collective .51* .29* .58** -.40 .19 .12 .23 Leader individual -.05 -.02 -.02 .10 .02 -.05 -.02 Leader relational .33 .26* .50** -.59 .00 -.18 .10 Leader collective -.06 -.03 -.15 .30 .09 .21 .20 F 4.40** 4.79** 4.46** 1.89 .99 1.78 2.39* R 2.17.18 .17 .08 .04 .08 .10 Member individual -.03 .06 -.12 .14 -.06 -.12 -.12* Member relational .09 .05 -.26 .04 -.21 -.24 -.07 Member collective .31 .11 .44** -.30 .11 .04 .10 Leader individual -.06 -.03 -.03 .10 .01 -.06 -.03 Leader relational .26 .19 .38** -.51 -.21 -.33* -.13 Leader collective .04 -.02 -.20 .33 -.07 .11 .04 Member LMX .55* .50* .27* -.22 -.05 .05 .06 Leader LMX .02 .05 .14 -.16 .66** .44** .71** F 13.31** 29.89** 8.57** 1.71 27.54** 10.70** 29.76** R 2.14.26 .10 .02 .29 .13 .28 Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Job sat

PAGE 53

44 Table 7. Mediating role of LMX in the relationship between regulatory focus and w ork criteria. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstanda rdized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Member promotion .61** .11 .51** -.23 -.06 -.06 .11 Member prevention .02 -.02 .03 .21 -.02 -.06 -.01 Leader promotion -.06 .06 .19 -.09 .14 .14 .21 Leader prevention -.10 .01 -.06 .04 -.06 -.15* -.07 F 6.22** .61 7.63** 1.72 1.24 3.14* 2.18 R 2 .16.02 .18 .05.04 .09.06 Member promotion .48** -.03 .48**-.17-.01-.05.14 Member prevention -.03 -.09 .02.24-.01-.06.00 Leader promotion -.17 -.03 .06.00-.01.05.02 Leader prevention -.14 -.04 -.08.07-.06-.16**-.08 Member LMX .53** .56** .20*-.27-.05.05.04 Leader LMX .19 .09 .39**-.22.57**.31**.69** F 20.56** 46.79** 12.35** 3.40* 22.12** 6.60** 29.28** R 2 .20.41 .13 .05 .24 .08 .29 Job satSuper sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI

PAGE 54

45 LMX by Justice Interactions Moderated hierarchical regression was used to test hypothesis 8, that distributi ve justice and LMX interact, such that distributive justice has stronger effe cts on the work outcomes of members with low quality (vs. high quality) LMX. First, each of the w ork criteria was regressed on distributive justice and the LMX rating of inter est (leader or member) in Step 1, followed by the distributive justice by LMX interaction term in Step 2 (see Tables 8 & 9). Results indicated that the distributive justice by member LMX interaction was significant only when supervisor satisfaction was the cri terion, F (3,136) = 4.41, p < .05 ( R 2 = .02). Consistent with expectations, distributive justice seemed to have stronger effects when member LMX was low versus high (see Figure 3). The distributive justice by supervisor LMX interaction was not significant for any of the work criteria. Hypothesis 9, that procedural justice and LMX will interact, such that procedural fairness has stronger effects on the work outcomes of members with high quality (vs. low quality) LMX, was also tested using moderated hierarchical re gression. First, each of the work criteria was regressed on procedural justice and the L MX rating of interest (leader or member) in Step 1, followed by the procedural justice by LMX interaction term in Step 2 (see Tables 10 & 11). Results indicated that the procedural justice by member LMX interaction was significant when supervisor satis faction, F (3,136) = 9.08, p < .01 ( R 2 = .04), and OCBO, F (3,136) = 5.90, p < .05 ( R 2 = .04), were the criteria. Contrary to expectations, however, procedural justice had a stronger relationship with supervisor satisfaction and OCBO when member LMX w as

PAGE 55

46 Table 8. Interactive effects of leader LMX and distributive justice on work cr iteria. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 9. Interactive effects of member LMX and distributive justice on work c riteria. Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Leader LMX .26 .38** .36**-.22.55**.39**.72** Distributive Justice .33** .04 .27**-.29**-.01-.04.00 F 22.5* 9.45** 25.24**8.63**24.48**8.23** 31.58** R 2.24.12 .27.12.26.11.32 Step 2 Leader LMX x DJ -.10 .04 .13-.16.01-.03-.02 F 1.05 .12 2.571.35.03.14.07 R 2.006.00 .01.01.00.00.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Member LMX .51** .58** .27**-.20.11.13.26** Distributive Justice .27** -.02 .26**-.28**.03-.02.03 F 38.72** 46.56** 25.11**8.98**2.081.51 6.23** R 2.37.41 .28.12.03.02.08 Step 2 Member LMX x DJ -.08 .08 .09-.08.01-.05.01 F 1.66 4.41* 2.35.68.041.15.01 R 2.01.02 .01.00.00.01.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings

PAGE 56

47 Figure 3 LMX by distributive justice interaction. 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD) Distributive JusticeSupervisor Satisfaction High MLMX Low MLMX Note MLMX refers to member rated LMX, whereas LLMX refers to leader rat ed LMX.

PAGE 57

48 Table 10. Interactive effects of leader LMX and procedural justice on work c riteria. Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Leader LMX .16 .34** .30**-.20.55**.41**.66** Procedural Justice .76** .17* .56**-.48**-.02-.10.15* F 51.98** 12.53 42.20**9.16**24.49**9.00** 35.33** R 2.43.14 .38.12.26.12.33 Step 2 Leader LMX x PJ -.15 .15 .19-.52*.18.23-.04 F .98 1.35 1.834.59*2.723.38.10 R 2.00.01 .01.03.01.02.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 11. Interactive effects of member LMX and procedural justice on work cr iteria. Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Member LMX .34** .57** .14-.12.11.17*.18* Procedural Justice .65** .00 .56**-.47**.04-.09.19* F 62.18** 46.31** 37.90**8.86**1.952.16 9.42** R 2.48.40 .36.12.03.07.12 Step 2 Member LMX x PJ -.11 .18* .05-.20.11.17*-.05 F 2.00 9.44** .432.262.745.90*.50 R 2.01.04 .00.01.02.04.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01.

PAGE 58

49 low versus high (see Figure 4). Results indicated that the procedural justice b y leader LMX interaction was significant only when turnover intentions was the criterion, F (3,136) = 4.59, p < .05 ( R 2 = .03). In line with the Hypothesis 9, the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intentions was stronger when leader L MX was high versus low. Hypothesis 10, that interpersonal justice and LMX interact, such that interpersonal fairness has stronger effects on the work outcomes of members wit h high quality (vs. low quality) LMX, was also tested using moderated hierarchical re gression. First, each of the work criteria was regressed on interpersonal justice and t he LMX rating of interest (leader or member) in Step 1, followed by the interpersonal justice by LMX interaction term in Step 2 (see Tables 12 & 13). Results indicated that the interper sonal justice by member LMX interaction was significant only when OCBO was the criterion, F (3,136) = 9.08, p < .01 ( R 2 = .04). Contrary to expectations, interpersonal justice had a stronger relationship with OCBO when member LMX was low versus high. The interpersonal justice by leader LMX interaction was significant only whe n task performance was the criterion, F (3,136) = 9.08, p < .01 ( R 2 = .04). Contrary to expectations, relationships between interpersonal justice and the outcomes wer e stronger when LMX was low versus high (see Figure 5).

PAGE 59

50 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD) Procedural JusticeTurnover Intentions High LLMX Low LLMX 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD)OCBOProcedural Justice High MLMX Low MLMX 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD)Supervisor SatisfactionProcedural Justice High MLMX Low MLMXFigure 4 LMX by procedural justice interactions. Note MLMX refers to member rated LMX, whereas LLMX refers to leader rat ed LMX. A B C

PAGE 60

51 Table 12. Interactive effects of leader LMX and interpersonal justice on w ork criteria. Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Leader LMX .33* .18* .44**-.30.52**.31**.66** Interpersonal Justice .38** .69** .22*-.27.09.17*.16* F 10.04** 86.13** 11.39**3.43*25.59** 10.43** 34.79** R 2.13.56 .14.05.27.13.34 Step 2 Leader LMX x IPJ .02 -.01 .22.12-.26*-.23-.01 F .01 .01 1.85.236.15*3.44.00 R 2.00.00 .01.00.03.02.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 13. Interactive effects of member LMX and interpersonal justice on work criteria. Job sat Super sat Aff org commitTurnover intentTask performanceOCBOOC BI Step 1 Member LMX .63** .28** .36**-.26.03-.01.16 Interpersonal Justice .04 .55** .08-.16.19*.25*.21 F 22.00** 102.13** 10.23**3.36*4.05*4.71* 8.17** R 2.24.60 .13.05.06.06.11 Step 2 Member LMX x IPJ -.13 -.05 .23.14-.11-.21*.02 F .93 .59 3.63.531.484.98*.05 R 2.01.00 .02.00.01.03.00 Subordinate ratingsSupervisor ratings Note N = 140 matched supervisor-subordinate pairs. Values reported in the table correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05 ** p < .01.

PAGE 61

52 Figure 5 LMX by interpersonal justice interactions. 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD)OCBOInterpersonal Justice High MLMX Low MLMX 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD) Interpersonal JusticeTask Performance High LLMX Low LLMX Note MLMX refers to member rated LMX, whereas LLMX refers to leader rat ed LMX. A B

PAGE 62

53 Chapter FourDiscussion The purpose of this study was two-fold as it examined motivation-based antecedents of LMX as well as interactions between LMX and justice. Fi rst, this study contributes to the sparse literature on antecedents to LMX by including three previously unexamined variables—attachment style, identity and regulatory focus—as ante cedents to LMX. These antecedents include basic intraand interpersonal motivations, w hich are under-researched compared to personality (e.g. positive affectivity and extr aversion) and demographic variables. Second, this study answers calls to integrate researc h on leadership and organizational justice by examining interactive effect s of these variables in predicting important work criteria. Importance of LMX The present study used LMX as a framework for understanding leadership because leadership is a social process, and LMX theory recognizes the importa nce of the leader-follower relationship by examining the quality of this relationshi p as opposed to behaviors or traits of individual leaders or followers. LMX is an important constr uct as extensive research has demonstrated the relationship between LMX quality and several important work criteria (for a review see Gerstner & Day, 1997). Results of the present study are consistent with extant research in that both leader and member perc eptions of LMX were favorably related to important work criteria, including member-ra ted job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, affective organizational commitm ent and turnover intentions, and leader rated task and citizenship performance. However, the relat ionship

PAGE 63

54 between member-rated LMX and leader-rated task performance was only ma rginally significant ( r = .16, p = .06). The relationship between member-rated LMX and leaderrated organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization was only marginally significant as well ( r = .14, p = .09). This may partly reflect a discrepancy between members’ actual behaviors and leaders’ inability to observe all behavior s exhibited by their subordinates. In addition, Ilies, et al. (2007) found that LMX was more strongly related to citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals than organizat ions. Antecedents of LMX Attachment Style Based on Gerstner and Day’s (1997) statement of the need for additional empirical research on the development of LMX I proposed that congruence on three motivation-based variables—attachment style, self-identity level and regul atory focus— would lead to higher quality LMX. Keller (2003) proposed that outcomes would be optimal when leader and member attachment styles are congruent. Surprisingly results of the current study indicated that those who were mismatched on attachment style had higher quality memberand leader-rated LMX than those who were matched on attachment style. This finding suggests that leader-member fit is comple mentary rather than supplementary. Supplementary fit occurs when an individual “supplements, embellishes, or possesses characteristics which are similar to other indi viduals” (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987), whereas complementary fit occurs when an individuals’ characteristics add to a situation what is missing. In the case of attachme nt style, supplementary fit would occur if similar leader and member attachment sty les led to higher relationship quality, whereas complementary fit would occur if diffe rent leader

PAGE 64

55 and member attachment styles contributed something missing from the situati on, thereby strengthening the relationship. One possible explanation for this complementary fit effect is that leaders and members expect different things from each other. For exam ple, members may prefer secure leaders and find it difficult to work with leaders who have anxious-ambivalent attachment styles because this dependency on the part of the le ader is inconsistent with the notion that leaders should offer guidance and support to followers, not vice-versa. Conversely, leaders may desire members with anxious-ambival ent attachment styles because it allows them to fulfill their leadership role b y providing guidance and support to followers. In the workplace, dyads whose attachment styles best complement each other should have the highest quality relationships. Leaders may tend to evaluate the se members more favorably as Engle and Lord (1997) demonstrated that leaders evaluat e those consistent with their prototype of a good follower more favorably. However, awareness of this phenomenon may prevent leaders from allowing personal prefe rences for member attachment styles to influence their judgments. One limitati on of attachment style as an antecedent of relationship quality is that it is believed to be a rel atively stable trait as it is formed early in life. Thus, it is difficult to alter attachm ent styles. However, the variables discussed next – identity and regulatory focus – are more malleabl e. Thus, desirable levels can be fostered. Self-Identity Level Self-identity level congruence was also expected to relate positively t o LMX quality because in congruent dyads both parties have overlapping goals and values. When identities are congruent, each partner in the dyad likely verifies the ident ity of the other,

PAGE 65

56 which is psychologically comforting and satisfies the need for being underst ood by others (Swann, 1999). Results indicated that although the data did not satisfy an absolute difference congruence structure, identity level had significant main e ffects on members’ and leaders’ LMX quality. Relational identity in particular appeared to be i mportant for LMX. Member and leader relational identity were significant predictors of leader perceptions of LMX, and member relational identity significantly predicted m ember perceptions of LMX, such that LMX quality was higher for those with strong rel ational identities. This falls in line with the self-identity literature because those with relational identities are concerned with their relations with specific others, place p riority on the quality of their relationships and form strong affective bonds with specific ot hers (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This also confirms recent calls by researchers to devote gre ater attention to the relational level (e.g., Sluss & Ashforth, 2007), which tends to be under-researched compared to the individual and collective identity levels. Relational identity is particularly important when considering dyadic exchanges between leaders and their followers. In addition, leader collective identity was positively related to leader pe rceptions of LMX, and member collective identity was positively related to member per ceptions of LMX. This also falls in line with extant self-identity research as those w ith collective identities are concerned with entities outside themselves. Because they de fine themselves in terms of organizational groups and pursue shared goals, and because supervisors are important means through which subordinates are connected with the larger organization, those with collective identities are likely concerned with developing relat ionships that will enable them to feel as though they are an important part of a larger collec tive. These

PAGE 66

57 findings regarding collective identity are intriguing because, to date, res earchers have examined how leaders impact the collective identities of their followers (e .g., Lord & Brown, 2001; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). My results suggest that the reverse relationship may also be possible: collective identity influences perceptions and reactions to leaders. Although identity did not show a congruence effect, it is clear that having an interpersonal orientation (i.e., have relational or collective identity levels ) is beneficial for high-quality LMX. Relational and collective identity also appeared to have favora ble effects on work criteria, including satisfaction with one’s job and supervisor, affe ctive organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors directed toward the individual. Notably, individual identity was significantly negatively related to citizens hip behaviors directed toward the organization. Thus, practitioners would be wise to enhance interdependent motivations in employees. Selecting employees based on identit y would be impractical and potentially unethical. However, identity has chronic (tr ait-like) as well as state-like qualities. Thus, organizational features, such as culture and lea dership, could be established with an eye on fostering interdependent identities. For example, pr ior research suggests that employee self-concepts are malleable (Johnson, C hang, & Rosen, 2006; Lord & Brown, 2004), and so leaders could encourage employees to focus on interdependent identity levels. Regulatory Focus Leader-member regulatory focus congruence was also expected to positively relate to LMX quality. Although Edwards’ criteria for using absolute differe nce scores to assess congruence effects were not met, it does appear that regulatory f ocus contributes to

PAGE 67

58 LMX. Specifically, leader promotion focus was significantly, positively rel ated to leader perceptions of LMX, and member promotion focus was significantly, positively rel ated to member perceptions of LMX. Promotion-focused individuals eagerly pursue success (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) and focus on strategies aimed at achieving desired outcomes (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). It is likely that these same behaviors are employed in interpersonal relationships as well, where promotion-ori ented individuals eagerly pursue high quality interpersonal relationships at work and focus on strategies aimed at achieving that desired outcome. Similar to interdependent identity levels, regulatory focus has both traita nd statelike qualities. Practitioners might foster promotion focus in employees as pr ior research suggests that regulatory focus can be primed (e.g., Lockwood, et al., 2002). Prevention focus was not significantly related to LMX. One reason may be the nature of the criteria examined as existing research suggests that prevention focus may be most useful for issues concerning safety and vigilance tasks (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Thus, pr evention focus may be more relevant when workplace safety is the focus. For example, Wa llace and Chen (2006) showed that prevention focus was positively related to safety performance at work, whereas promotion focus was positively related to supervi sor-rated productivity. Future research might further explore situations in which promotion or prevention focus may be preferable. Mediating Role of LMX Results of mediation analyses produced only one significant result. Specifica lly, LMX mediated the relationship between member relational identity and supervis or satisfaction. This suggests that leaders with relational orientations tend to foc us on

PAGE 68

59 fostering high quality relationships with their followers, and these high qualit y relationships lead to increased supervisor satisfaction for followers. Howeve r, this finding should be interpreted with caution as with the number of mediation analyses conducted it may be due to chance. LMX and Justice Based on Scandura’s (1999) model, I hypothesized that distributive justice would have stronger effects on work outcomes when LMX is low versus high because low L MX relationships are transactional in nature and members would likely be more conce rned with fairness of immediate outcomes in such cases. This was true only when supervisor satisfaction was the criterion. However, for members with low LMX, high di stributive justice actually had negative effects on supervisor satisfaction. In these c ases positive perceptions of other aspects of work, such as fairness of outcomes, may highlight for members the undesirable relationship they have with their supervisors, leading to l owered satisfaction with their supervisors. In addition, members might also question the authenticity of what appears to be fair behaviors when performed by leaders w ith whom they share low LMX relationships. When leaders act out of character – high LMX le aders act in an unfair manner or low LMX leaders act in a fair manner – it may be off -putting for followers. High LMX relationships are transformational in nature, and members are li kely to be more concerned with long-term procedural and interpersonal fairness rather than immediate distribution of outcomes in such cases. Therefore, I hypothesized tha t procedural and interpersonal justice would have stronger effects on work outcomes w hen LMX is high versus low. Significant interactions were found for procedural just ice when

PAGE 69

60 supervisor satisfaction, OCBO, and turnover intentions were the criteria. For members with low LMX, high procedural justice seemed to have negative effects on both supervisor satisfaction and OCBO. One possible explanation is that members with l ow quality LMX are suspicious of their supervisors and may perceive procedurally just behaviors as insincere or hiding ulterior motives. Thus, low LMX members may re spond in a negative way. In addition, self-verification theory (Swann, 1987) predicts that individuals respond most favorably when the treatment they receive is consistent wi th their perceptions. Thus, if members perceive low quality LMX they should prefer unf air treatment. When turnover intentions was the criterion, procedural justice had stronger effect for those with high (vs. low) quality relationships. It seems that havi ng a high quality relationship and perceptions of procedural fairness are necessary to produce lowered intentions to turnover. Significant interactions were found for interpersonal justice when OCBO and ta sk performance were the criteria. Interpersonal justice had a stronger rel ationship with OCBO when member LMX was low versus high. It seems that in cases of low LM X, strong perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment can lead to OCBOs regardl ess of relationship quality. When task performance was the criterion, interpersonal jus tice had stronger effects when LMX was low versus high. Leaders’ perceptions of poor LMX and member perceptions of unfair interpersonal treatment may signal a breakdown i n communication. This lack of communication may lead to confusion on the part of the subordinate about how best to perform their job and poor task performance. Overall, it seems that high LMX quality serves a protective role, such that a s long as leaders and members have a high quality relationship, perceptions of justice do not

PAGE 70

61 affect work criteria (supervisor satisfaction, OCBO, turnover intentions, and ta sk performance). However, justice perceptions seem to play a more important r ole in determining these work criteria when LMX is low. In addition, for most work crit eria, justice had strong positive effects independent of LMX quality. Thus, regardles s of the quality of leader-member relationships, leaders should strive to promote fair outc omes, procedures, and treatment. Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusion Several important limitations of this study should be noted. One limitation is the use of an undergraduate student sample as it may not be representative of the genera l working population. However, this sample worked an average of 28 hours per week and also included supervisors who worked full time. Another limitation is the cross-secti onal nature of the data collection, which limits the ability to draw causal conclusions f rom this research. However, the motivation-based variables studied here tend to be stable ove r time, and the relationship between LMX and work criteria has been well establ ished in previous research, which limits the possibility of reverse causality. I n addition, given the procedure for distributing surveys, predictor data were collected prior to pe rformance data in the majority of cases. Many subordinates completed their portion of the survey in class or in the lab before distributing the supervisor’s portion. Future research ma y benefit from the use of a longitudinal design using participants who are more representative of the working population. A third limitation is that data was collec ted through self-report measures. However, data was collected from employees and their supervisors, and collecting data from multiple sources reduces threats of same s ource bias and self-generated validity (see Harrison & McLaughlin, 1996; Harrison, McLa ughlin, &

PAGE 71

62 Coalter, 1996). Another limitation of this research is the relatively small sa mple size (150) to detect mediating and moderating effects. However, the fact that some signi ficant relationships were found strengthens the findings. A final limitation is the i nability to detect congruence effects using polynomial regression, which tends to be a conser vative method for doing so (Edwards, 2001). Future research may utilize other methods of examining congruence effects, such as response surface modeling (Edwards 1994). To summarize, the present study addressed whether leader-member congrue nce on motivational variables led to higher quality LMX. Although no support was found for the effects of motivational congruence on LMX quality, interdependent identity levels (relational and collective) and promotion regulatory focus had favorable direct effects on LMX quality. Secondly, this study examined interactive effects of justic e and LMX in predicting important work criteria, based on Scandura’s (1999) model. Most LMX by justice interactions were not significant, and results indicate that justi ce has strong effects regardless of LMX quality. However, significant LMX by justice intera ctions suggest that high LMX quality serves a protective function, such that justice perceptions do not affect work outcomes where high quality relationships exist.

PAGE 72

63 References Adams, J.S. (1964). Wage inequities, productivity and work quality. Industrial Relations, 3 9-16. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267– 285. Bales, R.F. (1954). In conference. Harvard Business Review, 32(2) : 44-50. Bauer, T.N., & Green, S.G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39 1538-1567. Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F.J. (2006). Attachment style and individual differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. Journal of Social Psychology, 146 165-182. Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fa irness. In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research in negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistok. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identit y and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

PAGE 73

64 Brockner, J., & Weisenfeld, B.M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120 189-208. Cammann, C., Fichman, M, Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Carver, C.S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new measure, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 865-883. Chemers, M.M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 27-43. Cohen, Jacob (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 rd Ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 386-400. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontier of theory and research (pp. 16-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

PAGE 74

65 leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 46-78. Deluga, R.J., & Perry, J.T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behaviour, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader^m ember exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology 64 239-252. Dienesch, R.M., & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadershi p: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11 618-634. Dockery, T.M. & Steiner, D.D. (1990). The tole of the initial interaction in leadermember exchange. Group & Organization Studies,15 395-413. Duchon, D., Green, S.G., & Taber, T.D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 56-60. Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of t he factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 736-741. Edwards, J.R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes,58 51-100. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F.E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76 128148. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource

PAGE 75

66 management. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Gellatly, I.R., Meyer, J.P., & Luchak, A.A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 331-345. Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader-member e xchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 827844. Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J.F. 1975. A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J .G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers 143-165. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 109131. Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9 175-208. 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 6 219-247. Green, S.G., Anderson, S.E., and 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.

PAGE 76

67 Green, S.G., & Mitchell, T.R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leadermember interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23 429458. 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 measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research. Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1996). Structural properties and psychometric qualities of organizational self-reports: Field tests of connections predicte d by cognitive theory. Journal of Management, 22, 313-338. Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 246-261. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270–280. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276–286.

PAGE 77

68 Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230. Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153. Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 184-200. Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York, NY: Free Press. House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 321-338. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Leader-Member Exchange and Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 2690-277. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884-899. Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. (2007). Development and validation of a work-based measure of regulatory focus Unpublished manuscript. Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175-201. Kahn, R.L., & Katz, D. (1953). Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics New York:

PAGE 78

69 Harper & Row. Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An atta chment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14 141-160. Kihlstrom, J.F., & Klein, S.B. (1994). The self as a knowledge structure. In R.S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition (2 nd ed., pp. 153-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kinicki, A.J., & Vecchio, R.P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor^subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 7582. Lee, H.R. (2000). An empirical study of organizational justice as a mediator of the relationships among leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, organiz ational commitment, and turnover intentions in the lodging industry. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61 2379. Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., & Rhee, K.Y. (2001). The three-component model of organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 596-614. Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24 4372. 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.

PAGE 79

70 Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 854-864. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56 241-270. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. Meyer, J.P., & Allen. N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1 61-89. Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mobley, W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkage in the relationship between job satisfa ction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 237-240. Muchinsky, Paul M., & Monahan, Carlyn J. (1987). What is person environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior 31 268-277. Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 499517). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Pellegrini, E.K. (2006). A cross-cultural investigation of the relations among organizational justice, paternalism, delegation and Leader-Member Excha nge

PAGE 80

71 (LMX) relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,67 1433. Phillips, A.S., & Bedeian, A.G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The rol e of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37 9901001. Sanchez, R.J. (2006). The role of trust, leader-member exchange, and organizational justice in employee attitudes and behaviors: A laboratory and field investigat ion. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66 p. 3987. Scandura. T.A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10 25-40. Scandura, T.A., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37 1588-1602. Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and attachment representations in young couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 389–401. 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, 63–113. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. D. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, collec tive self. New York: Psychology Press.

PAGE 81

72 Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2005). Development of the levels of self-concept scale: Measuring the individual, relational, and collective levels Unpublished manuscript, The University of Akron. Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 219-227. Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293. Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 577-594. Sluss, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007) Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through others. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9-32 Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Developme nt of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology 13 693713. Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of t he literature. Journal of Psychology, 25 35-71. Stogdill, R.M., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press for Bureau of Business Research. Sumer, H.C., & Knight, P.A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage.

PAGE 82

73 Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 653-663. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1999). Resilient identities: Self, relationships, and the construction of social reality Basic: New York Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 1038–1051. Thibaut, J.W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (2001). The primacy of the interpersonal self. In C. Sedikides & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Turban, D.B., & Jones, A.P. (1988). Supervisor^subordinate similarity: Types, effect s, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 228-234. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856. Vecchio. R.P. & Gobdel, B.C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34 5-20. Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, se lfregulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59 529-557. Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange qualit y in

PAGE 83

74 supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 487-499. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40 82-111. Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17, 601-617.

PAGE 84

75 Appendices

PAGE 85

76 Appendix A Subordinate survey Please answer the following questions about yourself: What is your race/ethnicity? a) White, non-Hispanic b) African American c) Hispanic d) Asian, Pacific Islander e) Native American f) Other ___________ What is your gender? a) Male b) Female How old are you? _______ On average, how many hours do you work at your job per week? _______ How long have you been with your current organization? _______ MONTHS or YEARS How long have you been with your current supervisor? _______ MONTHS or YEARS Please rate the extent to which each of the following statements is c haracteristic of YOU on the scale below: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. I often think about quitting my job with my present organiztion. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I will probably look for a job within the next year. 1 2 3 4 5 3. It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next year. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I thrive on opportunities to demonstrate that my abilities or talents are better than those of other people. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I often compete with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I feel best about myself when I perform better than others. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I often find myself pondering over the ways that I am better or worse off than other people around me. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 86

77 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 9. Making a lasting contribution to groups that I belong to, such as my work organization, is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 10. When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I am not the main reason for its success. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I would be honored if I were chosen by an organization or club that I belong to, to represent them at a conference or meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 13. When I am part of a team, I am concerned about the group as a whole instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them. 1 2 3 4 5 14. If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacrificing my time or money. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I value friends who are caring, empathic individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 16. It is important to me that I uphold my commitments to significant people in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person. 1 2 3 4 5 19. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 1 2 3 4 5 20. In general, I don’t like my job. 1 2 3 4 5 21. In general, I like working here. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with my current organization 1 2 3 4 5 23. I really feel as if my organization’s problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 24. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization 1 2 3 4 5 25. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 26. My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5 27. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 28. I help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I help others who have heavy work loads. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I assist my supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 1 2 3 4 5 31. I take time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 87

78 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 32. I go out of my way to help new employees. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I take a personal interest in other employees. 1 2 3 4 5 34. I pass along information to coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 35. My attendance at work is above the norm. 1 2 3 4 5 36. I give advance notice when unable to come to work. 1 2 3 4 5 37. I take undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5 38. I spend a great deal of time with personal phone conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 39. I complain about insignificant things at work. 1 2 3 4 5 40. I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5 41. My goal at work is to fulfill my potential to the fullest in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 42. I am focused on successful experiences that occur while working. 1 2 3 4 5 43. In general, I tend to think about positive aspects of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 44. I see my job as a way for me to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 45. I think about the positive outcomes that my job can bring me. 1 2 3 4 5 46. I feel happy when I have accomplished a lot at work. 1 2 3 4 5 47. I am focused on failure experiences that occur while working. 1 2 3 4 5 48. I am fearful about failing to prevent negative outcomes at work. 1 2 3 4 5 49. In general, I tend to think about negative aspects of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 50. I think about the negative outcomes associated with losing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 51. I feel anxious when I cannot meet my responsibilities at work. 1 2 3 4 5 52. I sometimes feel anxious at work. 1 2 3 4 5 53. When I’m close to someone it gives me a sense of comfort about life in general 1 2 3 4 5 54. It feels relaxing and good to be close to someone 1 2 3 4 5 55. Being close to someone gives me a source of strength for other activities 1 2 3 4 5 56. I have trouble getting others to be as close as I want them to be 1 2 3 4 5 57. I find others often are reluctant to get as close as I would like 1 2 3 4 5 58. My desire to merge sometimes scares people away 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 88

79 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 59. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me 1 2 3 4 5 60. I often worry my partner will not want to stay with me 1 2 3 4 5 61. I don’t worry about others abandoning me 1 2 3 4 5 62. I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very close 1 2 3 4 5 63. I find it easy to be close to others 1 2 3 4 5 64. I prefer not to be close to others 1 2 3 4 5 65. I am very comfortable being close to others 1 2 3 4 5 66. Others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being 1 2 3 4 5 The following items refer to YOUR SUPERVISOR Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 67. He/she treats me in a polite manner. 1 2 3 4 5 68. He/she treats me with dignity. 1 2 3 4 5 69. He/she treats me with respect. 1 2 3 4 5 70. He/she refrains from improper remarks or comments. 1 2 3 4 5 The following items refer to the procedures used to arrive at your PAY AND OTHER WORK OUTCOMES. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 71. I have been able to express my views and feelings during those procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 72. I have had influence over the pay and other work outcomes arrived at by those procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 73. Those procedures have been applied consistently. 1 2 3 4 5 74. Those procedures have been free of bias. 1 2 3 4 5 75. Those procedures have been based on accurate information. 1 2 3 4 5 76. I have been able to appeal the pay and other work outcomes arrived at by those procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 77. Those procedures have upheld ethical and moral standards. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 89

80 78. My pay and other work outcomes reflect the effort I have put into my work. 1 2 3 4 5 79. My pay and other work outcomes are appropriate for the work I have completed. 1 2 3 4 5 80. My pay and other work outcomes reflect what I have contributed to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 81. My pay and other work outcomes are justified, given my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 Please rate the extent to which each of the following stateme nts is characteristic of YOUR SUPERVISOR on the scale below: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 82. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job 1 2 3 4 5 83. My supervisor is unfair to me 1 2 3 4 5 84. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 85. I like my supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 Please answer the following questions about your relationship with YOUR SUPERVISOR 86. I usually know where I stand with my supervisor. Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 87. My supervisor understands my problems and needs. Not a Bit A Little A Fair Amount Quite a Bit A Great Deal 88. My supervisor recognizes my potential. Not at All A Little Moderately Mostly Fully 89. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, my supervisor would be personally inclined to help me solve problems in my work. None Small Moderate High Very High 90. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, I can count on my supervisor to “bail me out,” even at his or her own expense, when I really need it. None Small Moderate High Very High

PAGE 90

81 91. My supervisor has enough confidence in me that he/she would defend and justify my decisions if I were not present to do so. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 92. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? Extremely Ineffective Worse Than Average Average Better Than Average Extremely Effective

PAGE 91

82 Appendix B Supervisor survey Please answer the following questions about yourself: What is your race/ethnicity? a) White, non-Hispanic b) African American c) Hispanic d) Asian e) Other ___________ What is your gender? a) Male b) Female How old are you? _______ How long have you been with your current organization? (Months, years, etc.) ____________ Please rate the extent to which each of the following statements is c haracteristic of YOU on the scale below: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. I thrive on opportunities to demonstrate that my abilities or talents are better than those of other people. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I often compete with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I feel best about myself when I perform better than others. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I often find myself pondering over the ways that I am better or worse off than other people around me. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Making a lasting contribution to groups that I belong to, such as my work organization, is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 7. When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I am not the main reason for its success. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I would be honored if I were chosen by an organization or club that I belong to, to represent them at a conference or meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 10. When I am part of a team, I am concerned about the group as a whole instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 92

83 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 11. If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacrificing my time or money. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I value friends who are caring, empathic individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 13. It is important to me that I uphold my commitments to significant people in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person. 1 2 3 4 5 16. My goal at work is to fulfill my potential to the fullest in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I am focused on successful experiences that occur while working. 1 2 3 4 5 18. In general, I tend to think about positive aspects of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I see my job as a way for me to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I think about the positive outcomes that my job can bring me. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I feel happy when I have accomplished a lot at work. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I am focused on failure experiences that occur while working. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I am fearful about failing to prevent negative outcomes at work. 1 2 3 4 5 24. In general, I tend to think about negative aspects of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 25. I think about the negative outcomes associated with losing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 26. I feel anxious when I cannot meet my responsibilities at work. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I sometimes feel anxious at work. 1 2 3 4 5 28. When I’m close to someone it gives me a sense of comfort about life in general 1 2 3 4 5 29. It feels relaxing and good to be close to someone 1 2 3 4 5 30. Being close to someone gives me a source of strength for other activities 1 2 3 4 5 31. I have trouble getting others to be as close as I want them to be 1 2 3 4 5 32. I find others often are reluctant to get as close as I would like 1 2 3 4 5 33. My desire to merge sometimes scares people away 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 93

84 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 34. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me 1 2 3 4 5 35. I often worry my partner will not want to stay with me 1 2 3 4 5 36. I don’t worry about others abandoning me 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 37. I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very close 1 2 3 4 5 38. I find it easy to be close to others 1 2 3 4 5 39. I prefer not to be close to others 1 2 3 4 5 40. I am very comfortable being close to others 1 2 3 4 5 41. Others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being 1 2 3 4 5 Please rate the extent to which each of the following statements is c haracteristic of YOUR SUBORDINATE on the scale below: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 42. Helps others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 43. Helps others who have heavy work loads. 1 2 3 4 5 44. Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 1 2 3 4 5 45. Takes time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries. 1 2 3 4 5 46. Goes out of way to help new employees. 1 2 3 4 5 47. Takes a personal interest in other employees. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Passes along information to coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 49. Attendance at work is above the norm. 1 2 3 4 5 50. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 1 2 3 4 5 51. Takes undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5 52. Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 53. Complains about insignificant things at work. 1 2 3 4 5 54. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5 55. Adequately completes assigned duties. 1 2 3 4 5 56. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 1 2 3 4 5 57. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 58. Meets formal performance requirements of the job. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 94

85 59. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5 60. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform. 1 2 3 4 5 61. Fails to perform essential duties. 1 2 3 4 5 Please answer the following questions about your relationship with YOUR SUBORDINATE 62. I usually let my subordinate know where he or she stands with me. Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 63. I think that I understand my subordinate’s problems and needs. Not a Bit A Little A Fair Amount Quite a Bit A Great Deal 64. I think that I recognize my subordinate’s potential. Not at All A Little Moderately Mostly Fully 65. Regardless of how much formal authority I have built into my position, I would be personally inclined to use my power to help my subordinate solve problems in his/her work. None Small Moderate High Very High 66. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority I have, I would be willing to “bail out” my subordinate, even at my own expense, if he or she really needed it. None Small Moderate High Very High 67. I have enough confidence in my subordinate that I would defend and justify his or her decisions if he or she were not present to do so. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 68. How would you characterize your working relationship with your member? Extremely Ineffective Worse Than Average Average Better Than Average Extremely Effective


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001992187
003 fts
005 20090316141609.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090316s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002366
035
(OCoLC)315888414
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Jackson, Erin M.
0 245
Integrating leader-member exchange and organizational justice :
b why justice depends on relationship quality
h [electronic resource] /
by Erin M. Jackson.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 85 pages.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to integrate research on Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and organizational justice by proposing and evaluating plausible interactions between LMX and the various dimensions of organizational justice. In addition, this study contributes to the sparse literature on antecedents to LMX by including three previously unexamined antecedents, which consist of basic intra- and interpersonal motivations (i.e., attachment, identity, and regulatory focus), that are under-researched compared to personality and demographic variables. Data were collected from 150 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Results revealed several significant LMX by justice interactions and indicated that interdependent identity levels (relational and collective) and promotion regulatory focus are positively related to LMX quality. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Russell E. Johnson, Ph.D.
653
LMX
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Interpersonal justice
Attachment style
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2366