LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE DEVELOPMENT:
TWO ROUTES TOWARDS A HIGH LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIP
Master’s thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 22, 2018 ARON STRENGHOLT Student number: 2589990 Gorechtkade 121 c 9713 BL Groningen +31627830908 a.m.strengholt.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor Prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad
2 LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE DEVELOPMENT:
NEW ROUTES TOWARDS A HIGH LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIP
ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationship between personality similarities and Leader-Member Exchange, moderated by social identification. This study addresses the influence of group level variables on LMX at the dyadic level. The hypothesis is that personality similarity between follower and leader is positively related to LMX and that there is a positive relationship between group identification and LMX. A second hypothesis is that there is an interaction between personality similarity and identification on LMX, such that effects of similarity are weaker when identification is high and effects of identification are weaker when similarity is high. The hypotheses have been tested on a sample of 288 respondents, using a multiple-level regression analysis. The results did not show a positive relation between personality similarity and LMX. However, social identification by followers is positively related to LMX. Although the interaction effect approached significance, it was opposite to predictions and showed that LMX is high when social identification is high. However, when social identification is low, personality dissimilarity is high. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was disconfirmed. This study contributes to the body of work examining LMX development because there is extensive research on outcomes of LMX on the dyadic relationship. However, there is a lack of empirical research of how group level variables may influence LMX at the dyadic level.
KEYWORDS
3 INTRODUCTION
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory has received permanent attention from scholars over the last 40 years. The core principle of LMX is that leaders differentiate between their followers (Liden & Graen, 1980) and that LMX relationships vary in quality from low to high. This difference in quality varies across leader-follower dyads (Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). High-quality LMX has some positive effects for the organization. These outcomes are a lower turnover (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982) and superior performance ratings (Liden & Graen, 1980). Moreover, high-quality LMX relations can also result into positive individual outcomes such as follower job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982), trust, respect, autonomy, challenging assignments and satisfaction with the job and manager (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). On the other hand, low LMX has negative organizational outcomes, such as high levels of defensive communication and burnout (Becker, Halbesleben, & O’Hair, 2005), low job performance ratings (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003), and low levels of communication satisfaction (Lamude, Scudder, Simmons, & Torres, 2004). It is obvious that organizations and individuals benefit from a high LMX quality.
4 within LMX theory, is a phenomenon occurring in a group setting according to these multilevel views of OB. Therefore, even though LMX occurs on a dyadic level, group-level variables may shape this dyadic relation. How group level variables may influence LMX at the dyadic level is the main focus of this study.
The goal of this study is to integrate LMX theory with social identity theory and to come to new insights regarding the emergence of LMX. Specifically, two routes of LMX development in a group setting will be proposed. First, an individual route emerges from interpersonal attraction on a dyadic level. Newcomb (1956) found that perceived similarity was a key factor in interpersonal attraction. Thus, when a leader and a follower have a similar personality, the assumption is that the interpersonal attraction will be high. Due to the interpersonal attraction and the fact that the follower has a similar personality as the leader, the prediction is that followers may invest more effort in their jobs to perform. Over repeated exchanges both parties adapt their assumptions and the quality of the relationship starts to develop (Anand, Vidyarthi & Park, 2015). Therefore, personality similarity may lead to affection in the dyadic relationship. Thus, it is expected that personality similarity will lead to a high-LMX relationship (Bauer and Green,1996).
5 Furthermore, it is proposed that the two routes have a substitutive character. The expectation is that personality similarity has no effect on LMX when social identification is high. This is because a follower with high social identification towards the group thinks the group important and wants to maintain a positive relation with the group. Here, the leader is the representative of the group and therefore a good relation will be build up between leader and follower. This will lead towards a high LMX. Moreover, a follower with a high social identification wants to positively distinguish the group from other groups. Therefore, the
follower is willing to put effort in the group. A leader is satisfied with a motivated and effort making follower, which creates reciprocity with the leader. To achieve a high LMX, leader and follower do not have to like each other because of the positive influences of the group. For the individual route, personality similarity is enough to like each other and have a positive relation based on affect. Due to the affection between leader and follower, both are willing to invest in their relationship. As a result, leader and follower may develop a high LMX (see figure 1). Here, social identification has no effect on LMX. Therefore, one of the two routes are sufficient for a high-LMX. Which one depends on the cause and situation of the follower. Together, the research question is: “To what extent does social identification affect the relationship between
personality similarity and LMX development?”
6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Leader-member exchange
Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) is rooted in the principle that leaders differentiate between their followers (Liden & Graen, 1980). This principle is the role-making processes between a leader and each individual follower and the exchange relationship that develops over time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Dienesch and Liden (1986) and Liden and Maslyn (1998) distinguished four elements in this exchange relation: contribution (performing work beyond the job description), affection (friendship and liking), loyalty (mutual obligation), and professional respect. LMX relationships consist of one or more of these factors. Of course, in a high LMX all (or almost all) elements are present.
The basis for establishing a high-exchange relationship is the leader's control over outcomes that are desirable to a follower (Yukl, 2012). These outcomes, according to Yukl (2012), could be an assignment to an interesting and desirable task, a delegation of greater responsibility and authority, and more sharing of information. On the other hand, the follower in a high-exchange relationship provides various types of benefits to the leader in return for receiving these benefits (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). Examples in the above-described elements are more commitment to task objectives, loyalty towards the leader, and help with some of the leader’s administrative duties (Yukl, 2012).
7 Followers receive benefits that are not enjoyed by their low-quality LMX colleagues when they have high LMX relationships (Graen & Scandura, 1987). This indicates that followers with a higher LMX than other group members are treated by the leader in a more favourable way. Therefore, followers benefit from a high LMX and are motivated to gain a high LMX. The question then arises, “how does a follower develop a high-LMX relationship with its leader?”
Personality similarity
Bauer and Green (1996) theorized that leaders may be inclined to view members’ performance more positively, to trust them more, and to delegate more to them when dyad members have similar personalities and attitudes. Moreover, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell’s (1993) found that perceived similarity was a stronger predictor of subsequent LMX quality, compared to member competence or performance. Adding the earlier findings of Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Ilies (2009), it is arguable that personality similarity can influence LMX. However, over time other factors also influence LMX (e.g. performance). Moreover, whilst simple demographics such as sex or age do not seem to relate to LMX quality, similarity seems to influence the LMX development process, and therefore there is some evidence that personality similarity may make a difference in LMX development (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles & Walker, 2007).
8 Newcomb (1956) found that perceived similarity was a key factor in interpersonal attraction, and Fiedler (1958) reported that assumed similarity was significantly related to leader attitudes and team effectiveness. Izard (1960) conducted a study to see whether similar personality profiles lead to affection between people. In the study, friends were compared to random pairs to test the degree of affection. The major implication was that if person A and person B have similar personality profiles, they have vested affect or affect needs in common (Izard, 1960). More precisely, they have similar ways of expressing and receiving affection. Thus, when having a similar personality, the ways of expressing are also similar and affection develops between dyadic partners. This may result in mutually satisfying interactions and experiences (Izard, 1960) and therefore presumably to a higher LMX. Byrne (1971) supports this by proposing that, among other things, personality is related to interpersonal attraction and liking. Affection has been identified as the major component of interpersonal relationships (Zajonc, 1980). According to Zajonc (1980), an affective reaction can be a reaction of liking, disliking, preference, evaluation and the experience of pleasure or displeasure. Therefore, the assumption is that a similar personality is related to affection between leader and follower. This affection is related to a strong interpersonal relationship with the corresponding benefits for follower and leader. This will result in a higher LMX in comparison with followers and leaders with a more dissimilar personality.
9 Social identification
Hypothesis 1 is conducted within the dyadic level of LMX development. However, this is just one part of this study. The part that is missing is the influence of group effects on LMX development, and these influences of group effects occurs on the dyadic level. Thus, a multi-level view is given here. In this study, social identification is considered.
Groups have other powers and influences than the dyadic relationship itself. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the influences and forces of groups in relation to LMX development more in detail, starting with the social identity of individuals in groups. Research by Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley (2008) has shown that a need for identification (Glynn, 1998), need for affiliation (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001), organizational tenure (Riketta, 2005), and person-organization fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002) may predict identification. Those predictors are the basic needs of social identification for followers. When followers can fulfil these needs in a group, the identification with that group will be high. How social identification is related to LMX, is a question that arises.
10 who the others in the group are and how they behave. By knowing this, followers can respond in a more predictive way. This mechanism leads to reduced uncertainty about their social world and about their place within it (Hogg, Abrams, Otten & Hinkle, 2004). Self-esteem by followers will increase when they reduce their uncertainty in a group. It is arguable that followers with a high social identification with the group will value the group more than those who have a low social identification with the group. People derive their self-esteem from membership of groups. Because they want their groups to be positively distinguished from other groups, people are willing to put effort in it. This will result in better performance, because people with a high self-esteem sometimes perform better than people with a low self-self-esteem in groups (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs, 2003). Leaders will be more satisfied with well-performing followers than with less-performing followers in their teams and therefore LMX will be high. James and Greenberg (1989) found support that heightened in-group awareness leads to better performance. In turn, these group-favouring behaviours are recognized and valued by the leader, who reciprocates by investing in the follower. In addition, the leader is seen by group members as representative of the group or as the embodiment of the group (Wisse, & van Knippenberg, 2005). Someone who identifies with the group will therefore approach the leader with respect and positive affection. Again, this is likely to result in a positive relation between leader and follower.
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive relationship between group identification and LMX.
Moderating effect of social identification on the relation between personality similarity and LMX
11 other. Both lead to a high LMX and only one of the two is sufficientto develop a high-quality LMX. The difference is that both routes have different causes. The individual route may emerge when there is a similarity in personality between leader and follower. This similarity will result in more affection between leader and follower and means that both will express themselves similarly. In the end, this may result in mutually satisfying interactions and experiences (Izard, 1960) and therefore the assumption is that the leader and the follower will experiences a high LMX. Therefore, personality similarity is more important than social identification. Since a similar personality leads to affection between leader and follower, social identification has no effect on LMX. To conclude, the effects of personality similarity are stronger than the effects of social identification for the individual route.
12
Hypothesis 3. There is an interaction between personality similarity and identification on LMX, such that effects of similarity are weaker when identification is high, and effects of identification are weaker when similarity is high.
METHOD Procedure
To test the hypotheses, two questionnaires were used and distributed to 75 leaders and 214 followers from several companies in Holland and China. One questionnaire was for the leaders and one questionnaire was for the followers. The respondents were contacted through the personal network of the researcher and were contacted by email to create an interest in this study to participate. Followers were asked to fill in an online questionnaire consisting of statements about the items: LMX, personality and social identity. Leaders were asked to fill in statements about the items: social identification, personality and LMX of all followers1. Followers filled in eleven items for LMX and leaders four items. Otherwise, the questionnaire for the leader was too long to fill in everything for each team member. The level of agreement or disagreement was linked on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘fully agree’.
Both questionnaires were created in English and translated into Dutch for the Dutch employees and into Chinese for the Chinese employees. Two Dutch natives translated the questionnaire into Dutch and two Chinese natives translated the questionnaire into Chinese. The questionnaire has a voluntary character. The time to fill in the questionnaire was ten minutes for both questionnaires.
13 Sample
Leaders. From the 75 leaders, 53 leaders (70.7%) were from China and 22 leaders (29.3%) were from Holland. 47 leaders (62.7%) were male and 28 leaders (37.3%) were female. On average, the age of the leader was 44.25 (SD = 9.50). The average of the organization tenure was 17.2 years (SD = 12.33). The distribution of education level was 4 leaders (5.3%) had a high school degree, 19 leaders (25.3%) had a secondary vocational education degree, 47 leaders (62.7%) had a higher vocational education degree, and 5 leaders (6.4%) had a bachelor’s degree at the university or higher.
Followers. Five follower participants were excluded due to missing data. From the 213 followers, 155 (72.8%) were from China and 58 followers (27.2%) were from Holland. 114 followers (53.5%) were male and 99 followers (46.5%) were female. The average age of the followers was 33.59 years (SD = 8.94). The average organization tenure of the followers was 8.59 years (SD = 9.12). The distribution of education level was 15 followers (7%) had a high school degree, 68 followers (31.9%) had a secondary vocational education degree, 108 followers (50.7%) had a higher vocational education degree/university bachelor, 14 followers (6.6%) had a master’s degree at the university and 8 (3.8%) had a PhD degree.
Measures
14 Neuroticism consisted of four items with α = .68, where an example item was: ‘Have frequent
mood swings’. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to
which they agreed with the statements (1 = ‘fully disagree’ to 5 = ‘fully agree’). The score of the follower and the score of the leader were expressed in absolute differences over the five dimensions. First, the means for each Big Five dimensions were computed for leaders and followers. Second, for each Big Five dimension, the absolute differences between leader and follower scores were computed. They were added and their sum was divided by five to obtain a measure of personality differences. The result is one score to indicate whenever leader and follower are similar in personality. The lower the score, the more similar leader and the follower were.
Social identity (α = .91) was measured using Sani, Madhok, Norbury, Dugard, & Wakefield’s (2014) Group Identification Scale (GIS). Four items were used to measure social identity. This variable was the same for both questionnaires (see Appendix 2). Respondents were asked to indicate on a seven-point Likert scale the extent to which they agreed with the statements (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’). A sample item was: ‘I have a sense
of belonging to my [team]’.
LMX development (α = .93) for the followers and (α = .66) for the supervisors, was measured using Liden & Maslyn (1998) LMX scale. Both leader and follower were asked how they evaluate their relationship with the leader or with the follower. Eleven items were used to measure LMX development among follower (see Appendix 3). Four items were used to measure LMX development among leaders (see Appendix 4). Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which they agree with the statements (1 = ‘fully disagree’ to 5 = ‘fully agree’). A sample item for the follower was: ‘My supervisor is the
15 Control variables
Data on the respondents’ gender, nationality, organizational tenure, team tenure and level of education were collected.
According to Hooper and Martin (2008), demographic diversity may serve as an important factor in the relationship between LMX differentiation and group processes. Therefore, gender and level of education of the followers were used as control variables. These are known as typical types of demographic diversity (Pelled, 1992). Age is excluded as a control variable since it correlates strongly with organization tenure and therefore organizational tenure is chosen rather than age. Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982) found that LMX was a predictor of actual employee turnover, suggesting that a high organizational tenure will match a high LMX. Team tenure of the followers is used as a control variable because perceptions of LMX will likely be influenced by the amount of time invested in a relationship (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Nationality is included to see if there are any significant cultural differences between teams in Holland and in China.
16 in neuroticism) are characterized by embarrassment, insecurity, worry, and anxiousness and are severely limited in their social skills (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Feelings of inadequacy may develop in unbalanced relationships and thus may have a negative relation with LMX development. Openness is used as a control variable because it appears the give and take between employees and supervisors would benefit from the ability to challenge one another mentally (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, Walker, 2008), indicating a positive relation with LMX development.
Data analysis
The hypotheses were tested using multi-level regression analyses because of the nested data structure with employees nested in supervisors. Prior to the analyses, all independent variables were standardized to avoid multicollinearity and to facilitate the interpretation of interaction effects (Grewal, Cote & Baumgartner, 2004).
RESULTS
17 Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients for supervisors and followers are presented in Table 1. The correlation table shows that there is no significant correlation between the variable “LMX follower” and “LMX leader” (r= -.02, p > .05), indicating that leaders and followers do not agree with each other about the LMX between them. Notable is that the correlation table shows that there is a significant correlation between the variables of “nationality” and “team tenure” (r = .25, p < .01), indicating that followers in China have a higher team tenure than followers in the Netherlands. In addition, the correlation table shows that “nationality” significantly correlates with: “extraversion” (r = -.49, p < .01), “agreeableness” (r = -.58, p < .01), “conscientiousness” (r = -.39, p < .01), “neuroticism” (r = .53, p < .01) and “openness” (r = -.41, p < .01). This indicates that followers score higher on “extraversion”, “agreeableness”, “conscientiousness” and “openness" in the Netherlands than in China. Moreover, in China there is a higher score on the variable "neuroticism” by followers than in the Netherlands.
18 relevant to describe or did not correlate significantly with one another. Lastly, the correlation table shows that the variable of “personality differences” did correlate significantly with the variable “LMX leader” (r = .17, p < .05), indicating that high personality differences are associated with a high LMX for leader-follower. This result is not as expected.
--- Table 1 here --- Hypothesis testing
Table 2 and 3 presents the results of the regression analysis on LMX.
Hypothesis 1. No significant main effect of personality difference was found for leaders (b = .06, p > .10) and for followers (b = .05, p > .10). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was not supported, indicating that there is no positive relation between personality similarity and LMX for leaders and followers.
Hypothesis 2. A significant main effect of social identification by followers was found in model 4 (b = .12, p < .01) and in model 5 (b = 15, p < .01), indicating that follower LMX is higher when social identification is higher. No significant main effect of social identification was found for leaders in model 4 (b = .05, p > .10) and in model 5, (b = .05, p > .10). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was partly supported, which indicates that social identification has a positive effect on LMX for followers but not for leaders.
19 was that the differences were smaller. Instead, the differences are bigger. Thus, there is an interaction between personality similarity and social identification on LMX, but the effects of similarity are stronger when identification is high and effects of identification are stronger when similarity is high. Therefore, social identification plays an important role in the development of LMX.
--- Table 2 & 3 and Figure 2 here ---
DISCUSSION
The main goal of this study was to integrate LMX theory with social identity theory to find new insights about the emergence of LMX. Two ways towards a high LMX with a substitutive character were proposed (only one is needed to accomplish a high LMX). One way is through the dyadic level between leader and follower, the other way is through the identification with the groups and thus on the group level. Three hypotheses were used to integrate LMX theory with social identity theory. Hypothesis 1: ‘Personality similarity between
follower and leader is positively related to LMX’. Hypothesis 2: ‘There is a positive relation between LMX and group identification’. Hypothesis 3: ‘There is an interaction between personality similarity and identification on LMX, such that effects of similarity are weaker when identification is high, and effects of identification are weaker when similarity is high’. Results
showed support for H2 and did not show any support for H1 & H3.
20 (Apker & Fox, 2002). The focus of the leader may lie in higher order identities (on their superiors), suggesting that leaders do not experience LMX in the same way as their followers. According to Ashforth et al. (2008), lower order identities are more likely to constitute one’s primary group, that is, the major basis for task interdependence and interaction. Because of the high identification with the (primary) group, followers will show up to work on time, give a full day’s effort, and take responsibility for their actions (Berneth, Armenakis, Field, Giles & Walker, 2008). According to Berneth et al. (2008), it is expected that their supervisor will return those actions in some form as long as the actions by the employees are returned. Thus, over time the exchange relationship will develop and cultivate positive feelings of reciprocation. Consequently, followers with a high social identification develop a high LMX. Moreover, leaders have more LMX relationships than followers, indicating that leaders may focus on just one or two high LMX relationships. The other LMX relationships can be indicated by followers as high, but it can be experienced differently by the leader because of the (other) foci of the leader. Followers only have one LMX relationship in their group and are therefore more motivated and interested in building a sustainable LMX. Thus, the experiences and the perception of LMX is different for leaders and followers. Finally, followers can identify themselves with their leader as a role-model when social identification is high. When the group is positively distinguished from other groups, the social identification is high. Given this high identification, the leader may be a role-model for followers because the leader is a representative of the group (Wisse, & van Knippenberg, 2005). A leader can experience this differently because the focus is on the higher identity orders (Ashforth et al., 2008). Given the fact that every follower has only one leader in their group to focus on, followers can indicate their LMX in a different way than leaders do.
21 leader is more focussed on other higher-order groups and thus less to his own followers. The group is therefore very important to fulfil the needs of followers. This can be a reason why the social identification by followers is positively related to LMX because the followers can reduce their uncertainty in their own group. This is true to a lesser extent for leaders because they have other (higher) order groups to focus on.
Results showed marginally significant support that there is an interaction between personality similarity and social identification on LMX for followers, but not in the directions as expected. The expectation was that the effects of similarity are weaker when identification is high and effects of identification are weaker when similarity is high. However, results showed that the effects of similarity are indeed weaker when identification is high, but the effects of identification are stronger when similarity is high. The expectation was that the two routes both lead to a high LMX and that only one of the two was needed. Surprisingly, this is not the case. High social identification seems to be the most important route towards a high LMX (see figure 2). High social identification and a similar personality will give the highest score on LMX. When social identification is high and when personality changes from similar to dissimilar, there is no effect on LMX. Literature support this (Nahrgang et al., 2009). When social identification is low, LMX will decrease. However, a low social identification with a similar personality results in the lowest score on LMX. Here, a dissimilar personality results in higher LMX which is strange because this finding is not in line with the literature.
22 ways of thinking and working. Secondly, psychological need fulfilment and value congruence thus represent two distinct traditions within the person-environment fit (P-E) paradigm (Cable & Edwards, 2004). P-E fit theory is therefore used to explain why personality differences are positively related to LMX. The P-E fit paradigm comprises two longstanding traditions of research (Muchinsky & Monahan,1987). One is based on the notion of complementary fit, which occurs when personal or organizational characteristics provide what the other wants (Cable & Edwards, 2004). The other draws from the concept of supplementary fit, which exists when a person and an organization possess similar or matching characteristics (Cable & Edwards, 2004). When a leader and a follower have a dissimilar personality, they might be more complementary to each other. For this reason, followers can have characteristics that a leader needs or requires leading the team adequately. Therefore, performance may increase and in the end a high LMX is established.
Surprisingly, no support was found for the positive main effect of personality similarity and LMX for leaders and followers. There is a marginally significant interaction between personality differences and LMX when social identity is moderating this relation for followers but not for leaders. This is not in line with the work of, Berneth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, and Walker (2008), who found that supervisor-follower personality similarity facilitates higher quality LMX. A reason can be that dissimilarity positively relates to LMX because of the complementary fit between leader and follower. In this case, there is no evidence for supplementary fit between leader and follower. As a result, performance may increase because leaders and followers are complementary to each other and therefore a high LMX is established.
23 develop a relation with their leader faster than introvert followers. Therefore, employees’ extraversion has been found to be positively related to perceptions of LMX (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). Secondly, conscientiousness is significant (p <.01) for leaders in a multi-level regression on LMX in model 2, 3, 4 and 5. Literature supports this effect. Conscientious workers are characterized as hard working, persistent, dependable, responsible, loyal, and prudent (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Buss, 1991). Therefore, they are loyal and this may be a reason why conscientious followers have a higher LMX.
Implications
This research has some implication for LMX theory and contributes to the body of work examining LMX development, because there is extensive research on outcomes of LMX on the dyadic relationship. Nevertheless, there is a lack of empirical research on how group level variables may influence LMX at the dyadic level. In this study there is no evidence that personality similarity is positively related to LMX. However, evidence is found for the positive relation between social identification and LMX for followers. An implication is that a manager could choose to focus on the social identification process between leaders and followers in his/her organization. To do this, the manager needs to know the needs of the followers and how the followers can fulfil their needs in the group. The manager should analyse these needs from different perspectives. There should be awareness by the manger that the needs of the followers are individual but that those needs can only be fulfilled in a group setting. Therefore, the manager should consider the core of the social identity theory, in order to give followers the opportunities to fulfil their needs. When this process is sufficient, performance may increase because of the high social identification and therefore there will be a high LMX.
24 development of this relation as well. It is therefore interesting for scholars and researchers to study LMX from a multi-level view.
Limitations and future research
The first limitation of this study is that personality similarity at each dimension is a very broad construct. The Big Five dimensions of personality have been used to narrow the construct down. The mean was taken from each dimension of the Big Five. This means that every dimension is considered equally. There are a lot of differences between the Big Five dimensions and this study takes them all together. Personality traits will certainly influence the value employees place in a professional respect, or the value that supervisors place on employees who show up to work on time (Berneth et al., 2008).
A second limitation is sample size. The teams in this study have an average of three persons. The relevance of the social identity approach to small groups is significant (Hogg, Abrams, Otten and Hinkle, 2004). However, leaders selected followers based on their interest in participating in this study. A limitation is that leaders may have asked only follower who are ‘friends’ of them or that leaders only asked followers who are motivated to do a lot for their leaders. This influences LMX ratings.
A third limitation is that LMX and personality results are obtained by self-report ratings. This study may have some concerns. In this sense, the common method bias is a limitation. LMX can be changed when new team members are introduced. Therefore, in this study, LMX is a snapshot of the current situation in the organizations. Personality is of course the same over time but since it is a self-reported rating, ratings can differ from day to day because of the mood of the respondent.
25 Netherlands and from companies in the Netherlands. The way of achieving goals, and culture are different for each type of organization in both countries.
A fifth limitation is that the Big Five are not the only potential dispositional factors influencing LMX formation. Differences in LMX development can also be studied from the perspective of age or gender for example. Additionally, there are other dimensions to look at the similarity.
The last limitation is that causality can not be shown. Social identification plays a very important role in LMX development, but the statement that social identification leads to a higher LMX cannot be made. It is also possible that high LMX leads to high social identification instead of the other way around.
26 CONCLUSION
27 REFERENCES
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P., & Park, H. (2015). LMX Differentiation: Understanding Relational Leadership at Individual and Group Levels. In The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 29 Nov. 2017.
Apker, J., & Fox, D. H. (2002). Improving RNs’ organizational and professional identification in managed care hospitals. Journal of Nursing Administration, 32(2), 106-114. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Ashkanasy, N.M. (2003), Emotions in organizations: a multi-level perspective. In Fred Dansereau, Francis J. Yammarino (eds.). Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy (Research in Multi-Level Issues, Volume 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 9-54.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 379-413.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.
28 Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007) Is personality associated with perceptions of LMX? An empirical study. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 613-631.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2008). The influence of personality differences between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 216-240.
Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246-257.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and Supplementary Fit: A Theoretical and Empirical Integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822-834.
Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G. & Haga, W. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 278-296.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 342-362.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A 6-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 853-863.
29 Dansereau, F. & Markham, S.E. (1987). “Superior-subordinate communication”, in Jablin, F., Putnam, L., Roberts, K. and Porter, L. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA: 343-388.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & 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(1), 46-78.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group & Organization Management, 19(1), 67-86. 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.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R, L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
Erdogan, B. & Bauer, T. N. (2013). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Fiedler, F. E. (1985). Leader attitudes and group effectiveness. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 19S.
Ford, L. R., & Seers, A. (2006). Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 258-270.
30 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality Psychology in Europe: 7-24. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gooty, J., Serban, A., Thomas, J. S., Gavin, M. B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership research: An illustrative review of leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1080–1130.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relation-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Graen, G., & 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. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 175–208, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effect of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.
31 Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519-543.
Henderson, D.J., Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H. and Tetrick, L.E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: a multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208-1219.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small group research, 35(3), 246-276.
Hooper, D.T. and Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader-member exchange (LMX) quality: the effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions . Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 20-30
Izard, C. (1960). Personality similarity and friendship. The Journal of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 61(1), 47-51.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: the state of art. Psychological Bulletin, 86(9), 1201-1222.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
32 Jost, J. T., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). The system justification motive in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 227-245). New York: Psychology Press.
Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, M. S. (2003). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764-772.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502-518.
Lamude, K. C., Scudder, J., Simmons, D., & Torres, P. (2004). Organizational newcomers: Temporary and regular employees, same-sex and mixed-sex superior-subordinate dyads, supervisor influence techniques, subordinates communication satisfaction, and leader-member exchange. Communication Research Reports, 21(1), 60-67.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 723-746.
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), 662–674.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management: 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
33 Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary model of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256-266.
Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11(11), 575-586.
Pelled, L.H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615-631.
Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 990–1001 Ramarajan, L. (2007). Who am I? The influence of multiple identities on integrative problem-solving. Paper presented at the Identity and Organization conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 358-384.
34 Sin, H., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don't see eye to eye: An examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1048–1057.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychology sociale: 272-302. Paris: Larousse.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 5-34.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations: 15-40. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in in-group favoritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 357-371.
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the. Academy of
Management Review, 35(3), 358-372.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: 767-793. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35 Wisse, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader Self-Sacrifice and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Leader Prototypicality. The Journal of applied psychology, 90(1), 25-37
Yu, D., & Liang, J. (2007). A new model for examining the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 251-264.
Yukl, G, A. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
36 Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Note. N= 213. Gender is coded (1 = male, 2 = female), nationality is coded (1 = Netherlands, 2 = China), level of education is coded (1 = high school, 2 = secondary vocational education, 3 = higher vocational education, 4 = university bachelor, 5 = university master’s degree or higher), tenure is coded in years. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
37 Table 2
Multi-level regression analysis for followers
38 Table 3
Multi-level regression analysis for leaders
39 Figure 1
40 Figure 2
Interaction effect PD*SI for followers
Appendix 1. Personality questionnaire
Please specify how much you disagree or agree with each statement. Please tick ✓ ONE box on each line below. Very inaccurate’ = 1. ‘Moderately Inaccurate’ = 2. Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate = 3. ‘Moderately Accurate’ = 4. ‘Very Accurate’ =5
1. I Am the life of the party
2. I Talk to a lot of different people at parties. 3. I Don't talk a lot.
4. I Keep in the background 5. Sympathize with others' feeling 6. I Feel others' emotions
7. I Am not really interested in others
8. I Am not interested in other people's problems 9. I Get chores done right away
10. I Am not interested in other people’s problems 11. I Often forget to put things back in their proper place 12. I Make a mess of things
13. I Have frequent mood swings 14. I Get upset easily
15. I Am relaxed most of the time 16. I Seldom feel blue
17. I Have a vivid imagination
18. I Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. 19. I Am not interested in abstract ideas
42 Appendix 2. Social identity questionnaire
Please specify how much you disagree or agree with each statement concerning YOU AND YOUR current TEAM. Please tick ✓ ONE box on each line below.
(1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=neither agree nor disagree, 5=slightly agree, 6=agree, 7= strongly agree)
1. I feel a bond with my [team].
2. I feel similar to the other members of my [team] 3. I have a sense of belonging to my [team].
43 Appendix 3. LMX questionnaire for followers
Please specify how much you disagree or agree with each statement. Please tick ✓ ONE box on each line below. 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Questions;
1. I like my supervisor very much as a person.
2. My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend. 3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.
4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.
5. My supervisor would come to my defence if I were "attacked" by others.
6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.
7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description. 8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to further the
interests of my workgroup.
44 Appendix 4. LMX questionnaire for leaders
LMX. 4 items.
Please specify how much you disagree or agree with each statement. Please tick ✓ ONE box on each line below. 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Questions;
1. I like my follower very much as a person
2. My follower defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question
