1
ANTECEDENTS OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS
IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
A bilateral study on the influence of change leadership behavior on perceptions of Agent-recipient exchange
Author: J. J. Jansons Student number: 1686348
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde
Master BA, Change Management
1
ABSTRACT
Organizations evolve constantly. Many change initiatives are started. Regrettably however, many such initiatives fail. Part of the key to successful change may lie in the relationship between change agents and their change recipients. Existing research shows that a mutual feeling of trust regarding reciprocity, labeled Agent-recipient exchange (ARX), positively influences change success. Research into the antecedents of ARX could provide insight into the types of behavior that positively influence this mutual feeling of trust and thereby help create successful change. However, a significant body of research into ARX antecedents does not exist. This paper’s contribution is to investigate the extent to which one such antecedent, leadership behavior, influences the perceived quality of leader-member relationships by change agents and their recipients. In addition, this paper investigates how agent-recipient asymmetry with regard to the change agent’s leadership behavior influences the relationship between these concepts. The results present evidence that visible leadership behavior positively influences the level of ARX as perceived by change recipients. Furthermore, change agents appear to perceive levels of leadership behavior and ARX to be higher than change recipients do. Differences between agent and recipient perceptions of framing and creating behavior are found to influence the relationships between these leadership behavior types and ARX. Future researchers are urged to build on these results to further investigate how perceptions of leadership behavior influence ARX and to revert to existing Leader-member exchange (LMX) literature to include other possible antecedents.
2
INTRODUCTION
To many, if not all organizations, successfully managing change initiatives is of great importance. However, this appears to be challenging. Estimates of change failure range to up to 70 per cent of all changes (Burnes, 2009; Higgs & Rowland, 2005). These failures are sometimes attributed to technical issues, but others suggest that human issues play an even more important role (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). More specifically, several researchers have suggested that the quality of leader-member relationships affects the likelihood of successful change (e.g., Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2007; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Rogulic, 2013). Even though many studied the effects of leader-member relationships, few have attempted to assist managers in the development of high-quality relationships (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). Given these results, a better understanding of the antecedents of the leader-member, or ‘agent-recipient’, relationship quality is needed. More knowledge on how these relationships develop and what influences their quality would provide managers with new ways to influence the effectiveness of change initiatives.
The concept of Leader-member exchange (LMX) first emerged in the 1970s. It builds on the premise that leaders develop a unique relationship with each of their subordinates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). These relationships range from low quality transactional relationships to high quality relationships based on trust, respect and mutual liking (Bernerth et al., 2007) and have been found to affect a range of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of subordinates. The core characteristics of LMX on a basic level are clear, but the past four decades of LMX research have not yet resolved all ambiguity concerning the nature and definition of the concept (Gerstner & Day, 1997). A helpful and more specific conceptualization is Leader-member social exchange (LMSX) (Bernerth et al., 2007). LMSX stems from social exchange theory and stresses the degree of reciprocity in social transactions. It is based on the premise that individuals and groups try to maintain a balance between their inputs and outputs in their social transactions (Blau, 1964). In high quality social exchange relationships actors trust that actions on their part are or will be reciprocated by the other, in a way not necessarily specified beforehand. Rogulic (2013) tailored LMSX to change situations, and labeled the construct Agent-recipient exchange (ARX). Similar to early LM(S)X research, Rogulic focused his efforts on the effects of leader-member relationship quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).
3
These studies have consistently found leadership behavior to be an important determinant of leader-member relationship quality (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, however, no such research has been done in a change-specific situation. Given the strong similarities between ARX and LMX, leadership behavior may well influence ARX. In examining the leader’s role in change situations, remarkably few authors have moved beyond generic descriptions of leadership behavior (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). An exception to that is the work by Higgs and Rowland (2000, 2005, 2011). Their three sets of change leadership behavior – shaping framing and creating – cover much of the well known leadership descriptions, but are also more specific than most commonly used concepts (Vos, Rupert, & Eseryel, 2015). We focus our efforts on investigating how these change leadership behaviors influence ARX.
Both change leadership and Agent-recipient exchange are perceptive rather than objectively observable concepts (Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998; Van Gils, Van Quaquebeke, Van Knippenberg, 2010). Individual actors develop their own perspective of their behavior and relationships to others. Due to their different roles in a project, change agents and recipients make sense of change situations differently. Change agents make sense of a situation, then try to ‘give sense’ to their recipients, who in turn make sense of what they perceive (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). We argue that these differences, or asymmetries (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010), between agent and recipient may well play an important role in explaining the relationship between change agent leadership behavior and the Agent-recipient exchange relationship.
The main contribution of this study is that it investigates whether ARX levels are influenced by leadership behavior. No previous literature regarding ARX antecedents was found. This research is one of the few to strengthen the work of Higgs and Rowland (2005, 2011) by doing a quantitative study (Vos et al., 2015). In addition, this research investigates whether asymmetry between agents’ and recipients’ perspectives of leadership behavior influences the relationships between change leadership behavior and ARX. In summary, the aim of this study is helping to bring the ARX literature a step forward, by considering the antecedents of the concept, specifically change leadership. In order to do so, the following research question is addressed:
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The roots of Agent-recipient exchange (ARX) lie in Leader-member exchange (LMX) and Leader-member social exchange (LMSX). This section therefore commences by devoting specific attention to LMX and LMSX before addressing the concept ARX itself. Subsequently, antecedents of ARX are explored, focusing on leadership behavior. Lastly, agent-recipient asymmetry is addressed, as a result of its potential relevance to the study of ARX and its antecedents.
Leader-member exchange (LMX) and Leader-member social exchange (LMSX)
The concept of leader-member exchange (LMX) first emerged in the 1970s. It differs from other leadership theories, because it focuses on the separate relationships that leaders have with each of their followers (Bernerth, 2005; Dansereau et al., 1975; Dulebohn et al., 2012). Early LMX literature challenged the prevailing view that all members of a team have similar relationships with their leader (Bernerth, 2005). LMX therefore focuses on the dyadic relationship between each separate follower and their superior (Dansereau et al., 1975). According to the LMX theory, the quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate predicts outcomes on individual, group and organizational levels of analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
After over 40 years of LMX literature, ambiguity remains concerning both the basic definition of the concept and the adequacy of its measurement (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Through the years, several scales have been developed and are still in use (Gerstner & Day, 1997, Bernerth et al., 2007). Uncertainty about the definition of the concept and the removing and adding of items across studies gave rise to criticism regarding construct validity and scale development quality (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Keller & Dansereau, 2001). To this day, the argument regarding a definitive LMX scale has not been settled (e.g., Bernerth et al., 2007; Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2015). Despite the ambiguity regarding the exact nature of the concept, the majority of studies show a consensus on LMX being “the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate” (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999: 77). Low quality relationships are characterized by economic exchange and direct tangible reciprocity, whereas high quality relationships are more social in nature, based on trust, respect and mutual liking (Bernerth et al., 2007; Dulebohn et al., 2012).
5
theory (Bernerth et al., 2007). VDL mainly focuses on the degree of latitude leaders grant to their subordinates to negotiate their working roles (Dansereau et al., 1975). High quality exchanges are characterized by high degrees of trust, respect and obligation, whereas low quality exchanges are the exact opposite (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Early LMX literature stipulates that managers have ‘trusted assistants’, who grow beyond their job descriptions, and ‘hired hands’, who only do what is essentially required of them (Zalesny & Graen, 1987).
In recent years, the focus of LMX researchers has shifted towards social exchange theory, which proposes that exchanging favors is an important part of the leader-member relationship (Bernerth et al., 2007). The social aspects of the leader-member relationships have consistently been part of LMX literature throughout the 1990s and 2000s (Bernerth, 2005). As a theoretical foundation for this conceptualization of LMX, many have referred to the work of Blau (1964) and Gouldner (1960) (e.g., Bernerth, 2005; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009). Both Blau’s social exchange theory and Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity explicitly state that exchange is central to social life (Bernerth, 2005). Furthermore, both stress the importance of reciprocity in order to achieve social equilibrium and cohesion. Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity minimally demands that people should help those who have helped them and should not injure those who helped them (Gouldner, 1960). Moreover, recipients feel obliged to repay those who have acted in a manner beneficial to them. Blau (1964) adds to this that “Individuals and groups are interested in, at least, maintaining a balance between inputs and outputs and staying out of debt in their social transactions; hence the strain towards reciprocity” (Blau, 1964: 26).
The sense of reciprocity that Blau and Gouldner advocate is one of social rather than economic exchange. That is, other than economic exchange, social exchange theory does not entail any specific obligations, but proposes that recipients of positive actions experience a sense of indebtedness. Followers will try to reduce this feeling by returning an equivalent action to the donor. While some future return is expected, in social exchange the exact nature of this return is not stipulated in advance (Blau, 1964; Bernerth et al., 2007; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).
6
an implicit obligation is created for future reciprocation (Bernerth et al., 2007). They define LMSX as “the perception held by subordinates as to whether or not voluntary actions on their part will be returned by the supervisor in some way” (Bernerth et al., 2007: 985).
Agent-recipient exchange (ARX)
While LMSX is an interesting concept, it does not target change situations specifically. Bernerth et al. (2007) argued that in order to better distinguish between LMSX and traditional LMX, subsequent research should include organizational change efforts. Rogulic (2013) responded to their call by adding a change context to the concept of LMSX. Rogulic labeled the modified concept Agent-recipient exchange (ARX), which he defined as “the perception held by the change agent/recipient as to what extent voluntary actions on one’s part will be returned by the other party in some way during the change initiative” (Rogulic, 2013: 11).
The new concept differs from LMSX in two distinct ways. For one, rather than leaders and members, the actors are change agents and change recipients. Change agents are “those who are responsible for identifying the need for change, creating a vision and specifying a desired outcome, and then making it happen” (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008: 362). Change recipients can be characterized as those responsible for implementing, adopting or adapting to the change (Ford et al., 2008; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). Second, other than LMSX research, which takes into account the perceptions of the members only (Bernerth et al., 2007), ARX research takes a bilateral approach, which includes both change agents’ and change recipients’ views.
Leadership as an antecedents of leader-member relationship quality
Now that we have covered the evolution of LMX, LMSX and ARX, we can further investigate their place in the literature. The main reason for these constructs to interest researchers is their effect on change effectiveness. Regardless of the precise definition used by researchers, studies have consistently shown both LMX and LMSX to be predictors of change success (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007). Preliminary studies to ARX have shown comparable outcomes, linking ARX to both low resistance and high change effectiveness (Mellema, 2015; Rogulic, 2013).
7
Liden, Wayne and Stilwell, 1993). The most important antecedents to LMX however seem to be the characteristics of the leader. In a recent meta-analysis, Dulebohn et al. (2012) examined existing literature on both the antecedents and consequences of LMX. From the 16 groups of antecedents in their study, follower characteristics, leader characteristics and the interpersonal relationship between a leader and a follower emerge as the three main groups of determinants influencing LMX. Out of these three variables, they found “leader characteristics (e.g., behavior and perceptions) to demonstrate the strongest relationship with LMX quality” (Dulebohn et al., 2012: 1741). As others before, Dulebohn et al. (2012) argue that the reason for their finding lies in the different roles of leaders and their subordinates. As leaders exert more control in the development of relationships with their followers, their behavior is very important in the development of high-quality relationships with subordinates (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
In the LMX literature, two general types of leader behaviors have consistently been positively related to LMX quality: contingent reward behavior and transformational leadership (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2005). Contingent reward behavior clarifies what is expected from followers, and how they will be rewarded if they meet such expectations (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). It involves feedback, rewards and recognition for accomplishments (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Transformational leaders use their personality and charisma to motivate their followers to follow their vision (Burnes, 2009; Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012). An interesting study to leadership with regard to LMX is the work of Wang et al. (2005). They found that leader-member relationship quality is not only influenced by transformational leadership behavior, but that LMX also explains the link between transformational leadership and both task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Although it is beyond the scope of this research to investigate any consequences of ARX quality, it is promising to note that LMX is indeed central in explaining the relationship between leadership behavior and performance (Dulebohn et al., 2012).
Towards conceptualizing change leadership behavior
8
Given the notion that ARX is tailored specifically to an organizational change context, our interest is in change leadership rather than general leadership behaviors. Moreover, the previously mentioned leadership behaviors do not move beyond generic descriptions (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). A conceptualization of leadership that is both change related and adequately specified is the work by Higgs and Rowland (2000, 2005, 2011). In three papers, they have linked leadership behaviors to activities involved in implementing change and to change success. They went beyond generic descriptions and established three main types of leadership behavior: shaping behavior, framing change and creating capacity. These categories include similarities with the aforementioned leadership styles, but cover more of the behavior of change leaders (Vos et al., 2015).
Shaping behavior entails leader-centric behavior. Change leaders expressing this type of behavior make others accountable (Bass, 1996), and use an individual focus to bring about the message of change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). This leadership behavior type further entails controlling what gets done (Avolio, Walumba, & Weber, 2009) and regularly expressing of the change agents own views and beliefs about the change (Gill, 2003). Stated alternatively, these change agents focus their efforts on doing change to people rather than with them (Higgs & Rowland, 2011).
Framing behavior is behavior through which leaders communicate the guiding principles for a change. They establish starting points for change, design and manage the change (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Contrary to shaping behavior, change agents who express framing behavior seek interaction with change recipients. They connect with recipients on an emotional level and embody the future intent of the organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). They do not withdraw from tough decisions and describe reality without compromise (Gill, 2003; Stacey & Griffin, 2005).
Creating behavior is related to bringing people together by communicating and creating connections between individuals. Change agents using this type of behavior create individual and organizational capabilities (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Creating behavior creates a safe environment for the change recipients, sets boundaries, and creates an alignment with the top. These change leaders demonstrate a commitment that engenders trust and enable recipients to try new possibilities, learn and act differently (Goffee & Jones, 2000; Higgs & Rowland, 2011).
9
those who tend to be enabling rather than shaping the behavior of the followers, and thus express framing and creating rather than shaping behavior (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). They did however encounter a notable amount of shaping in some effective leaders’ behaviors, which indicates that some degree of leadership direction is needed to effectively manage change initiatives. In the broader leadership literature, a more enabling approach has been linked to the emotional content of leader-follower exchange (Gill, 2003).
All things considered, LMX literature lacks adequate conceptualizations of leadership behavior specifically tailored to organizational change efforts. The change literature, however, has shown that shaping, framing and creating behavior are sufficiently defined concepts for analyzing change leadership behavior (Vos et al., 2015). The analyses in this paper will therefore use them as we research the impact of leadership behavior on ARX.
Agent-recipient asymmetry
In their working relationship, both agents and recipients form perceptions of their dyadic counterpart (Engle & Lord, 1997). They perceive their own behavior, the behavior of others and the quality of their relationships from their own personal perspective (Nye, 2002; Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009). As both actors influence their relationship in a different way, they tend to be predisposed towards a change. For example, as managers can usually influence the strategy, they tend to view changes in a positive light (Sonenshein, 2010). We label these differences in perceptions among dyad members agent-recipient asymmetry (Jehn et al., 2010). Low asymmetry occurs when an agent and a recipient observe similar levels of leadership behavior or ARX, high asymmetry occurs when the dyad members do not agree.
Both ARX and change leadership behavior can be defined as perceptive rather than objective concepts (Schriesheim et al., 1998; Gils et al., 2010). That is, rather that objectively observable, they allow for individual actors to develop their own perspective. In a change situation, which interrupts normal patterns of organization, both change agents and recipients develop new patterns and views of what happens in their direct environment (Ford et al., 2008). The process of developing plausible images to rationalize and respond to the organizational world has been referred to as sensemaking (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). That is, change agents and recipients have different roles in a change situation. Change agents make sense of a situation, then try to ‘give sense’ to their recipients by their actions. The recipients in turn make sense of what they perceive (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
10
1995). However, several studies have determined that asymmetry between leader and member reports of their relationship is typically rather high (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1998), which indicates that the leader-member relationships are indeed subject to perceptions. Schriesheim and colleagues have conducted several studies that offer insight in the causes of this asymmetry. (Cogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009; Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009; Schriesheim, Wu, & Cooper, 2011). Zhou and Schriesheim (2009) conclude that it is very likely that each member of the supervisor-subordinate dyad focuses on different aspects of the exchange. “Supervisors may emphasize more work-related dimensions, and subordinates more socially-related dimensions” (Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009: 32). Apart from the rater’s perspective, they find attributional errors and social desirability to be important determinants of asymmetry. Attributional errors particularly arise when respondents are asked to rate unobservable behavior of someone else. Socially desirable responding has a number of possible sources, which include a lack of self knowledge and a lack of frankness. As a result, ratings differ between agents and recipients (Schriesheim et al., 2011).
11
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
The influence of change leadership behavior on ARXIn order to take into consideration the perceptive nature of both leadership behavior and ARX, we first study the perceptions of the agents and the recipients separately. From the theory examined in previous sections we deduct that change leadership behavior may well be an important determinant of the quality of leader-member relationships. If we put the results of previous ARX research and the work on change leadership behavior by Higgs & Rowland (2005) side by side, we find that framing and shaping behavior, as well as high levels of ARX, are related to change effectiveness. Shaping behavior and low levels of ARX were found related less effective change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Rogulic, 2013).
When we revisit the literature about shaping, framing and creating behavior, we find an important difference between shaping behavior on the one hand and framing and creating behavior on the other. Shaping behavior is directive, leader-centric behavior, meaning that the change agent seeks to convince recipients and make them responsible rather than interact with them, whereas framing and creating behavior can be considered interactive enabling behavior. Change agents expressing these behaviors seek interaction with their subordinates and try to facilitate rather than direct their actions (Higgs & Rowland, 2005; 2011).
The exchange relationship between change agents and recipients is built upon the social exchange process between the two (Bernerth, 2005). Change agents influence this process through their leadership behavior. Effective leaders manage to build up high quality exchange relationships with their subordinates (Wang et al., 2005). We propose that directive leader behavior (shaping) leads to lower quality relationships, whereas interactive, enabling behavior (framing, creating) leads to higher quality relationships (Figure 1). In order to test this proposition, the following hypotheses were developed:
H1a/b: The higher the change agenta/recipientb’s perceived level of shaping behavior, the lower the change agenta/recipientb’s perceived level of ARX .
H2a/b: The higher the change agenta/recipientb’s perceived level of framing behavior, the higher the change agenta/recipientb’s perceived level of ARX .
12
Figure 1. The effects expected of change leadership behavior on ARX.
The influence of agent-recipient asymmetry on the expected relationships
Our first three hypotheses shed light on the expected relationships between change agents’ leadership behavior and ARX quality from the perspectives of change agents and recipients separately. The second part of our research question investigates whether different perceptions within each dyad influence our expected main effects.
Firstly, now that we have established that we indeed expect agent and recipient perceptions of leadership to differ, as explained in the previous chapter, we can determine how we expect these differences to occur. As change agents make sense of a situation, then try to ‘give sense’ to their recipients, who in turn make sense of what they perceive (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), we may expect that agent’s behaviors are not always noticed by each individual recipient. In addition, self-evaluation usually yields higher ratings than evaluating others (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Sonenshein, 2010). With regard to ARX, which focuses on the behavioral-oriented part of the Agent-recipient exchange relationship (Rogulic, 2013), we argue that change agents emphasize more on work-related dimensions than recipients (Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009). Moreover, as change agents can usually influence the strategy, they tend to view any change in a positive light (Sonenshein, 2010). In sum, change agents are expected to evaluate both their leadership behavior and the quality of their relationship with subordinates higher than change recipients.
Secondly, we found that the quality of ARX relationships is based on the reciprocal social exchange process between the agent and the recipient (Bernerth, 2005). If asymmetry between agents’ and recipients’ perceptions of leadership within a dyad is high, we can argue that the agent and the recipient have gone through different processes to make sense of the behavior of the agent (Weick et al., 2005). However, for leadership to be a strong determinant of ARX, the behavior should be clear to both parties. Therefore, we propose that the relationship between the agent’s behavior and ARX is weaker for higher levels of asymmetry.
13
H4a: Change agents’ perceived levels of ARX, shaping behavior, framing behavior and creating behavior are significantly higher than change recipients’ perceived levels of these concepts.
H4b: Asymmetry between agents’ and recipients’ perceptions of leadership behavior moderates the relationship between shaping, framing, creating and ARX in such a way that the relationship is stronger for lower levels of asymmetry.
14
METHOD
Data collection and sample description
In the previous sections, we have devoted attention to the literature discussing our main concepts and indicated a literature gap that may be of interest to many companies. Given that the literature is already quite elaborated, but the evidence on our theoretical explanations is still inconclusive, a theory testing approach suits this research best (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). Therefore, to test our hypotheses, we conducted a quantitative field study.
The results were gathered from change agents and recipients who were currently involved in a change project or had been involved in such a project no more than three years before. As our research focuses on the dyadic relationship between change agents and each of their recipients, only teams of an agent and at least one recipient were allowed to partake in the research. In order to minimize the threshold for our respondents, the questionnaires were distributed online. Once a group of participants agreed to take part in our research, they received a hyperlink to the survey and a unique code for each participant, through which we were able to match the change agent and recipients of the same project.
Over a period of two years, data was collected from 96 change agents and 294 corresponding change recipients. Groups range from 1 to 10 recipients. However, most groups consist of a change agent and 3-4 change recipients (61 % of all groups). As all dyadic data, our data too are multilevel in nature (Krasikova & LeBreton, 2012). The data set for this research represent the individual change agents and recipients, as well as the dyadic relationship between them. To acknowledge the multiple levels, the data from the agents and the recipients are treated as separate samples in answering hypothesis 1-3.
15 TABLE 1 Sample descriptives
Total sample Agents Recipients
Age (mean) 40 44 39 Gender Male 59% 70% 55% Female 41% 30% 45% Educational level Primary education 6% 2% 7%
Secondary or intermediate education 29% 14% 34%
Polytechnic of University 63% 82% 57%
Other 2% 2% 1%
Work experience (mean)
Current position 7 years 7 years 7 years
Total experience 18 years 19 years 17 years
N = 390 for the total sample, 96 for the agent sample and 294 for the recipient sample
Measures
To measure our constructs from both the agent’s and the recipient’s perspective, two corresponding questionnaires were developed. Though similar, the questions in each survey are tailored to their target audience. For the development of the questionnaire items, this research relies on existing scales. This section provides the background of the items used, the following section tests the validity of the constructs. Appendix A presents the content of all items measuring our main constructs and control variables.
Change agent leadership behavior. To measure leadership behavior, this study uses a
16
Agent-recipient exchange. The measures for the construct of Agent-Recipient Exchange
(ARX) are based on the Leader-member social exchange (LMSX) scale by Bernerth et al. (2007). Bernerth et al. realized that none of the existing LMX scales were adequately capturing the notion of social exchange. Therefore, they developed a new set of items, solely based on Blau’s (1964) conceptualization of social exchange. In a three-step process, the items were tested for content validity, scale dimensionality and differentiation from current LMX scales. This resulted in an eight-item LMSX-scale. All items are measured on a 7-point Likert-scale. Rogulic (2013) adjusted the LMSX-items slightly in order to fit the change context and to be applicable to both change agents and change recipients (Appendix A). He relabeled the concept ARX, but did not make any far-reaching changes to the content. Therefore, no further pre-testing of the scales was deemed necessary.
Agent-recipient asymmetry. The asymmetry between agents’ and recipients’ perceptions
of leadership behavior cannot be measured directly through questionnaire items. Therefore, to arrive at the asymmetry between the agents and recipients, we pair the results of each change recipient with those of their change agent. Then, we take the square of the difference scores on change leadership to arrive at the absolute difference. The total difference, labeled agent-recipient asymmetry, is the sum of the three squared difference scores.
Scope of the change. Congruent with earlier ARX research, the scope of the change was
added as a change related control variable to assure that differences between change projects do not affect our main relationship (Rogulic, 2013). The scope is “the extent to which the intended state of the organization differs from its state before the change” (Vos & Brand, 2012: 6). A radical change, which has a large impact on change recipients (Plowman, Baker, Beck, Kulkarni, Solansky, & Travis, 2007), may ask for different leadership behavior than a minor realignment. To measure the scope of the change, scales were adopted from Vos and Brand (2012). Their scope breadth scale includes “the physical spread of change across the organization” (Balogun and Hope Hailey, 2008: 70), whereas scope depth refers to “the desired profoundness a change agent wants to achieve by implementing a change” (Vos & Brand, 2012: 6). The scope depth scale consists of six items, the scope breadth scale consists of four items. All items are measured using a 7-point Likert scale (Appendix A).
Other control variables. Apart from the scope of the change, we control for the
17 Factor analyses and reliability testing
The data were collected amongst 96 change agents and 294 corresponding change recipients. In our analyses, these groups are first treated separately, then combined into 294 dyads of a change agent and a recipient. For the purposes of testing whether the items are representative measures of our constructs and whether the groups of items are reliable measures, analyses were conducted over the complete set of 390 observations.
In order to test whether the underlying dimensions of our data set are congruent with the theoretical assumptions from the measurements section, we used exploratory factor analysis. Analyses on the four main constructs tested in our hypotheses - ARX, framing, shaping and creating - determined whether these constructs are indeed separate dimensions in our data. In a similar vein, separate factor analyses were conducted to tests whether scope breadth and scope depth are suitable for use as control variables. Reliability analyses were conducted for each construct separately.
Main constructs. For our first factor analysis, based on the work of Higgs and Rowland
(2005), and following subsequent research by Vos et al. (2015), five items per leadership behavior type were used. We used the eight ARX-items from Rogulic (2013). As the three leadership types are not necessarily fully orthogonal, oblique rotation was selected (Field, 2009). To test the assumptions of the factor analysis, we started by testing for sampling adequacy and sphericity. The Kaiser-Mayer-Okin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.94, well above the commonly used minimum value of 0.50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Batlett’s test of sphericity was significant (df = 253, Sig < 0.001), giving no statistical reason not to proceed with the extraction of factors from the items. On the basis of the outcomes (using the criteria of Eigenvalues > 1 and sufficient explained cumulative variance), a four factor model seems to fit the data best. In line with previous research (Bernerth et al., 2007; Rogulic, 2013) ARX loaded in one factor. One item (ARX_*) did not meet the prerequisite of loading into a factor >0.4, and was therefore left out of further statistical analysis. All items for the three leadership behavior types loaded into separate factors, congruent with the work of Vos et al. (2015). The factor analysis was repeated without item ARX_*. All remaining items loaded into the four factors as expected. Therefore, using the seven remaining ARX items, we could proceed with the reliability analyses. The factor analysis of the final scales can be found in Appendix 1.
18
creating behavior showed a Cronbach’s α of 0.87, 0.88 and 0.89 respectively, well above the commonly used threshold of 0.6. Therefore, for all three constructs, a sum variable was computed using all five items (Table 2).
Control variables. This research controls for a number of demographic variables and for
the breadth and depth of the scope of the change. All demographic variables are one-item objective measures, and can therefore be used without factor and reliability analyses. Scope depth and breadth however consist of several items. Because no interference between our main items and control variables is expected, a separate factor analysis (oblique rotation) was conducted for scope breadth and scope depth. The Kaiser-Mayer-Okin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.80. Batlett’s test of sphericity was significant (df = 45, Sig < 0.001). Based on the results of this analysis, two of the scope breadth items were removed, as was one of the items for scope depth, because they did not load into clear factors. Another reliability analysis without these items confirmed the factors (Appendix A). The reliability analysis on the five items measuring scope depth showed an α of 0.79. The analysis on the two remaining items measuring scope breadth also showed an α of 0.79. Because these values are above the commonly used threshold of 0.6, for both scope breadth and depth, a sum variable was calculated using all remaining items.
TABLE 2
Construct development
Chronbach’s alpha
Items Mean Standard
Deviation
Agent-recipient exchange 0.91 7 4.52 1.11
Change leadership behavior
Shaping behavior 0.87 5 4.87 1.16
Framing behavior 0.88 5 5.07 1.07
Creating behavior 0.89 5 4.58 1.20
Scope of the change
Scope depth 0.79 5 4.28 1.26
Scope breadth 0.79 2 5.01 1.57
19
RESULTS
Our hypotheses 1-3 assess the relationship between change leadership behavior and ARX from the perspective of change agents and change recipients separately. The analyses for our final hypothesis take the perceptions of both the change agent and recipient into account. This section commences by a discussion of the descriptive results from both perspectives. It continues by investigating hypotheses 1-3 for the change agents, then for the change recipients. Finally, the issue of asymmetry addressed in hypothesis 4 is investigated by combining the results of the agents and their recipients.
Descriptive results
Before we move on to the testing of our hypotheses, we first discuss the means, standard deviations for our main variables as well as the control variables for the agent and recipient data. As can be seen from Appendix B, change agents on average rate change leadership behaviors as well as ARX higher than change recipients. Although this points in the direction of hypothesis 4a, we have yet to discuss whether these differences are significant in agent-recipient dyads in later sections.
For both the agent and recipient samples, the correlation matrices show significant correlations between all change leadership behavior styles, as well as associations between the three leadership styles and ARX. Even though none of these correlations is very high (r > 0.8) (Field, 2009), we will include the Variance inflation factor (VIF) in the discussion of our regression analyses to corroborate these findings.
Another pattern in both samples, though stronger in the recipient data, is a correlation between the dummy variables we calculated to include respondents’ educational level in our analyses, as is common for dummy variables. Furthermore, scope breadth and depth correlate with each other. Interestingly, in both samples, a number of significant correlations was found between the scope of the change and change leadership behavior styles (see Appendix B).
20 Change agents’ perspective
In order to answer whether change agents’ perceptions of their own leadership behavior influence their view on the quality of their relationship with their subordinates, the regression analysis on the change agent sample was built up using two hierarchical steps (Table 3). In the first analysis, only our four main constructs are included in the model. ARX is the dependent variable and shaping, framing and creating behavior are independent variables. In the second analysis, we added gender, experience, education and scope as control variables.
TABLE 3
Regression analysis (Agent)
Model 1 Model 2 B (sd) T VIF B (sd) T VIF (constant) 2.09 * (0.23) 3.91 3.01 * (1.33) 2.27 Shaping -0.01 (0.06) 2.39 2.13 0.00 (0.17) 0.02 1.98 Framing 0.36 (0.06) 4.83 1.84 0.34 (0.20) 1.74 1.77 Creating 0.12 (0.06) 5.81 2.10 0.16 (0.14) 1.14 1.99 Gender 0.04 (0.25) 0.14 1.17 Experience -0.01 (0.02) -0.38 1.29 Education (d1) -0.77 (1.09) -0.71 2.17 Education (d2) -0.58 (0.83) -0.71 7.22 Education (d3) -0.81 (0.78) -1.04 8.00 Scope depth 0.00 (0.11) 0.00 1.61 Scope breadth -0.05 (0.07) -0.75 1.25 N = 96 *p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001.
21
3a could not be confirmed. Each of the items showed to inflate the variance minimally (variance inflation factors < 1.8) indicating that there is an acceptable amount of multicollinearity between them. The second regression model is not significant (F = 1.28; p = 0.25), possibly due to the decreased amount of degrees of freedom caused by adding more variables. Leaving out any single control variable did not yield a significant regression analysis. Because we are unable to control for these variables, we rely on the results of model 1 to answer hypotheses 1-3 from the change agents’ perspective.
Change recipients’ perspective
To test hypotheses 1-3 from the change recipients’ perspective, we conducted the same analyses on the recipient sample. Again, model 1 contains our main constructs only. Our control variables were added in model 2 (Table 4). Model 1 is significant (F = 87.25; p = 0.00). About 47% of variance in ARX quality in the recipient data can be explained by the variables included in this regression analysis (R2 (adj.) = 0.47). Model 2 is significant as well (F = 27.46; p = 0.00) and also explains 47% of variance in ARX quality (R2 (adj.) = 0.47).
22 TABLE 4
Regression analysis (Recipient)
Model 1 Model 2 B (sd) T VIF B (sd) T VIF (constant) 0.91 *** (0.23) 3.91 1.42** (0.53) 2.68 Shaping 0.14 * (0.06) 2.39 2.13 0.18** (0.06) 2.99 2.26 Framing 0.29 *** (0.06) 4.83 1.84 0.26*** (0.06) 4.36 1.91 Creating 0.34 *** (0.06) 5.81 2.10 0.34*** (0.06) 5.77 2.13 Gender -0.00 (0.10) -0.04 1.03 Experience -0.01 (0.01) -1.20 1.13 Education (d1) 0.14 (0.46) 0.30 6.38 Education (d2) -0.05 (0.42) -0.12 17.79 Education (d3) 0.03 (0.42) 0.08 19.08 Scope depth -0.04 (0.04) -1.04 1.13 Scope breadth -0.06* (0.03) -2.11 1.13 N = 294 *p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001. Agent-recipient asymmetry
23 TABLE 5 Paired samples T-test
Mean Mean (SE) 95% Confidence Interval T (df)
Recipients Agents Lower Upper
ARX 4,45 4,70 0.25 ** (0.09) 0.09 0.42 2.99 (294) Shaping 4,68 5,48 0.80 *** (0.08) 0.64 0.96 9.96 (294) Framing 4,86 5,77 0.91 *** (0.07) 0.77 1.05 12.68 (294) Creating 4,41 5,14 0.73 *** (0.09) 0.56 0.90 8.52 (294) N = 294 *p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p < .001.
Hypothesis 4b states that asymmetry between agents’ and recipients’ perceptions of leadership behavior moderates the relationship between leadership behavior and ARX in such a way that the relationship is stronger for lower levels of asymmetry. To test this hypothesis, another regression analysis was performed. Similar to the analyses performed to test hypotheses 1-3, this model again contains the effects of shaping, framing, creating and a number of control variables on ARX. In addition, to evaluate the moderating effect of asymmetry on these main effects, it contains agent-recipient asymmetry and the interaction terms between the agent-recipient asymmetry and shaping, framing, and creating (Jaccard & Turrisi, 2003). Because our previous regression model on the agent sample was insignificant, the decision was made to only test on the change recipient data.
24
A B
Figure 3. Recipient’s perspective: the interaction effect of asymmetry and (A) framing and (B) creating on ARX.
TABLE 6
Regression analysis (Asymmetry)
25
26
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion of the findings
Researchers have consistently shown that leadership behavior is an important antecedent of the quality of the relationship between change agents and their recipients (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997). However, such research did not assess change initiatives and change leadership specifically. Given the reciprocal nature of agent-recipient relationships and the perceptive nature of our concepts, we have not only investigated how change leadership behavior types affect Agent-recipient exchange (ARX) from the perspectives of the agents and the recipients, but also how asymmetry between the perceptions of leadership behavior within each agent-recipient dyad influences these effects.
Hypothesis 1 states that shaping behavior negatively influences ARX. Contrary to our expectations, the regression analyses on the recipient data showed shaping behavior to have a significant positive effect on ARX. Analysis of the agent data yielded no significant results. Even though Higgs and Rowland (2005, 2011) found shaping behavior to negatively influence change effectiveness, our findings in the change recipient data suggest that the effect they found occurs through another mechanism than ARX. A possible explanation for these results is that shaping, like transformational leadership, is a very visible leadership behavior (Vos et al., 2015). In LMX literature, several researchers have linked transformational leadership to a higher exchange relationship quality (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2005). It may well be that in their relationship with a change agent, recipients value visible leadership behavior as honest and trustworthy and therefore regard it to be a determinant for a better social exchange relationship with the change agent. In addition, as stated by Higgs & Rowland (2011), some degree of leadership direction may be needed for the successful implementation of change.
27
which involve interaction rather than coercion positively influence the quality of an Agent-recipient exchange relationship.
Note that the above results are based on the recipient sample. In the agent sample, we found no significant relationship between any of the three change leadership behavior types and Agent-recipient exchange. The most likely explanation for these results is that the number of participating agents, which is approximately three times lower than the number of recipients in our research, prohibited us from finding significant outcomes. The fact that our regression analysis itself was insignificant when control variables were added further supports this conclusion. However, even though LMX literature consistently links leader behavior to the quality of the exchange relationship between leaders and members (e.g., Dulebohn et al, 2012), we cannot rule out the possibility that the absence of significant results actually represents the absence of a relationship from a change agent’s perspective.
A tentative explanation for our findings in hypotheses 1-3 is that leadership behavior that is positively related to change effectiveness partly works through the mechanism of influencing the relationship between change agents and recipients. Given the results of this research and previous findings regarding ARX and change effectiveness (Rogulic, 2013), we believe that further research into the linkages between change leadership behaviors and both ARX and change effectiveness could prove to be very illuminating. In the LMX literature, such an integrated approach to both the antecedents and consequences of the relationship quality has shown promising results. Wang et al. (2005) found LMX to fully mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
28
Schriesheim et al., 1998). These results also support the notion that as managers can usually influence the strategy, they tend to view any change in a more positive light than recipients (Sonenshein, 2010).
Finally, hypothesis 4b states that the asymmetry between change agents’ and change recipients’ perceptions of leadership behavior significantly affects the relationship between leadership behavior and ARX in such a way that the relationship is stronger when asymmetry is low. Interestingly, this hypothesis was only supported with regard to framing behavior. Our results for shaping behavior were not significant, and the results for creating behavior even contradict our hypothesis. For framing behavior, our results show that if asymmetry is high, it no longer positively influences ARX, but negatively. This finding supports our proposition that for leadership to be a strong determinant of ARX, the behavior should be clear to both agents and recipients. The interaction effect for creating behavior showed that it is even more positively related to ARX in high asymmetry situations. One way to explain this finding is that because creating behavior in essence is about creating space for employees to act independently (Higgs & Rowland, 2005), recipients likely do not notice such leadership behavior as strong as their agents. Meanwhile, their freedom to act independently may lead change recipients to perceive their relationship with the agent as being of high quality.
In summary, our results indicate that more apparent leadership behavior in all three behavior types enhances the quality of the exchange relationship between change agents and recipients. Furthermore, we found that agents and recipients indeed perceive both ARX and leadership behavior differently. Interestingly, the effects of these asymmetries on the agent-recipient relationship quality seem to be much more intricate than expected.
Theoretical contributions
Taken together, our findings have implications for the (change) leadership and the ARX literatures. Compared to the LMX literature, ARX research adds a valuable new layer to the extant literature, by touching on change specifically. Because change management differs from general management, it is valuable to test whether general management findings apply to organizational change efforts as well (Bernerth et al., 2007). This research applied social exchange theory and leadership behavior types from change management literature in order to test whether earlier findings in general LMX research could be extrapolated to change situations, and presented evidence that they largely can.
29
2012). We encountered no existing research to the antecedents of ARX. This research fills this literature gap by showing a direct effect of change leadership behavior on ARX. In doing so, this research has also answered to Bernerth’s (2007) call to include organizational change efforts into LMSX research.
Second, by investigating shaping, framing and creating behavior, our research adds to the small number of researches quantitatively investigating Higgs and Rowland’s (2005, 2011) leadership styles (Vos et al., 2015). Also, by showing that shaping behavior positively influence ARX, our findings endorse the suggestion by Higgs & Rowland (2011) that a degree of leadership direction may be necessary for successful change implementation. This, of course, is under the assumption of a positive relationship between ARX and change effectiveness.
Third, our research confirms reports from both the LMX (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1998) and leadership literatures (e.g. Gioia et al., 1994; Van Gils et al., 2010) that leaders and their subordinates have divergent perceptions of leadership and the quality of their dyadic relationship. In addition, our results show that these differences occur in change situations as well. Our findings on the influence of agent-recipient asymmetry on the relationship between leadership behavior and ARX once again underline the importance of taking a bilateral approach to ARX research, as has been previously suggested by many (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Ford et al., 2008; Sonenshein, 2010).
Practical implications
The findings presented in this paper have a number of interesting practical implications for change agents. We know that many managers struggle with finding appropriate ways to bring a change initiative to a successful end (Burnes, 2009). While existing research highlights the importance of high quality ARX relationships for successful change, it does not provide practical guidance on how managers can actually act to influence that social exchange relationship with their employees (Dulebohn et al., 2012). By pointing to specific types of leadership behavior as drivers of good ARX, this paper does offer such guidance and contributes to management literature in a practical sense.
30
relationship with the change agent to be of higher quality. In essence, these results encourage leaders to express visible leadership behavior in change situations and to develop these three behavior types in their daily work and through trainings.
Second, our results indicate that asymmetry between perceptions of change agents and change recipients regarding leadership behavior influence the quality of the relationship between the two. For change leaders, it is beneficial to recognize the existence of such asymmetries, as awareness of these differences can help them to better understand and steer the perceptions and behavior of their subordinates.
Lastly, by – to the best of our knowledge – being the first research to investigate the antecedents of Agent-recipient exchange, this paper opens the door to further research into ARX antecedents, the results of which could provide managers with even more practical indications on how to positively influence the individual relationships with their employees.
Limitations and future research
Our research has provided interesting insights in the change agent’s role in the development of high-quality social exchange relationships with change recipients. Nevertheless, as any study, this research faced several limitations. As the literature field of ARX is novel, both our findings and these restrictions offer great opportunities for subsequent research, often guided by the existing LMX and LMSX literatures.
First, to recognize the perceptive nature of our constructs, this study adopted a reciprocal one-with-many design, in which both parties of the dyadic relationship are asked questions about each other (Kenny et al., 2006). From the change recipients’ perspective, this approach suits our focus on separate dyadic relationships very well. From the agents’ perspective however, our options were limited. Change agents were asked to describe their behavior and relationships with regard to all their change recipients, not with each of them separately. In that sense, our approach moves towards an average leadership style rather than a dyadic perspective (Bernerth, 2005). Even though we were able to control for overrepresentation of change agents with many recipients (hypothesis 4b), subsequent researchers are recommended to investigate each individual dyadic relationship separately.
31
agent-recipient exchange relationship. In addition, a larger data set will allow future researchers to include more contextual factors in their analyses, such as the scope of the change.
Third, in our data retrieval process, change agents were allowed to select a number of recipients of their choice to participate. This may have led to them selecting employees with a positive attitude towards them or towards the change. For subsequent research, it is recommendable to find ways to randomly select a number of recipients in order to exclude the possibility of the occurrence of such a bias.
32
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72, 441-462.
Avolio, B. J., Walumba, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. 2008. Exploring strategic change. Harlow: Pearson.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm for leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Virginia, USA: Alexandra.
Bernerth, J. (2005). Putting exchange back into leader-member exchange (LMX): An empirical assessment of a social exchange (LMSX) scale and an investigation of personality as an antecedent. Doctorate dissertation, Auburn University.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader– member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 979-1003.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change, 5th edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2012). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 452-465.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review,11(3), 618-634.
33
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988-1010.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage publications.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 362-377.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6), 827.
Gill, R. (2003). Change management or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3, 307-318.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic management journal, 12(6), 433-448.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence.Organization science, 5(3), 363-383.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2000). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review, 63-70.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161 – 178.
Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (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. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: The quest for change competence. Journal of Change Management, 1, 116-130.
34
Higgs, M., Rowland, D. 2011. “What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3): 309-335.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (Vol. 72). Sage. Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work
group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A., & Jick, T.D. 1992. The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (2001). The effect of adding items to scales: An illustrative case of LMX. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 131-143.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people
change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of applied psychology, 97(4), 739. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The
past and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 47-120.
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(4), 662. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Leader‐Member
Exchange (LMX) and Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Review. Personnel Psychology. Advance online publication.
Mellema, A. (2015). Agent and Recipient: Same but different. Master’s thesis, University of Groningen.
35
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1986). Notes on the Practical and Theoretical Consequences of Implicit Leadership Theories for the Future of Leadership Measurement. Journal Of Management, 12(1), 31.
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.
Rogulic, D. (2013). Towards understanding agent-recipient exchange on change effectiveness. Master’s thesis, University of Groningen.
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(6), 1588-1602.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1): 62-113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). A within- and between-groups analysis of leader-member exchange as a correlate of delegation and as a moderator of delegation relationships with performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298-318.
Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). A two-study investigation of item wording effects on leader–follower convergence in descriptions of the leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 881-892.
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(3), 219.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're Changing—Or are we? untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of management Review, 22(2), 522-552.
Stacey, R., & Griffin, D. (2005). Leading in a complex world. In Complexity and the experience of leading organizations, 3-13. Abingdon: Routledge.
