unlimited access with print and download

Free

Continue searching

The role of follower self-concept and implicit leadership theories in transformational leadership and leader-member exchange

Dissertation
Author: Douglas L. Rahn
Abstract:
  This longitudinal study evaluates the role of a follower's self-concept and implicit leadership theories on the interpretation of transformational leadership behaviors and the development of leader-member exchange. Leadership behaviors were hypothesized as antecedents to leader-member exchange. The hypotheses draw upon the social cognition theory of self-verification. Implicit leadership theories were evaluated as absolute differences between actual and recognized leadership behaviors. Both implicit leadership theories and self-concepts were tested for moderation of the leadership behaviors and leader-member exchange. Additional dependent variables included turnover intentions, organizational identification, and perceived organizational support. A key contribution of this research is the application of these variables to new organizational entrants. Two-hundred and ten new followers at a single organization completed three surveys upon organizational entry, 30 days post hire, and approximately 90 days post hire. Structural equation modeling was utilized to conduct confirmatory factor analyses and the development of the measurement and structural models. Leadership behaviors were significantly related to the development of leader-member exchange. Leader-member exchange also fully mediated the leadership behaviors. The collective and relational self-concept levels were correlated with leader-member exchange but failed to reach significance in the full structural model. Implicit leadership theories and absolute difference scores were significantly related to leader-member exchange development. Neither the self-concept nor implicit leadership theories moderated the relationship between leadership behaviors and leader-member exchange. Leader-member exchange had significant effects on all of the outcome variables.

vii Table of Contents Page List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii Chapter I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Research .......................................................................................... 1 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 1 Importance of the Topic .......................................................................................... 4 Introduction of the Research Problem .................................................................... 7 Contribution to the Literature ................................................................................. 9 The Plan of Study.................................................................................................... 9

II. Review of Literature..................................................................................................... 11 Leader-Member Exchange .................................................................................... 11 Leader-Member Exchange Theory ........................................................... 11 Development of Leader-Member Exchange ............................................. 14 Leadership Behaviors............................................................................................ 20 Leadership Behaviors and Leader-Member Exchange ............................. 24 Self-Verification Theory ....................................................................................... 25 Follower‟s Implicit Leadership Theory ................................................................ 27 Implicit Leadership Theories and Leadership Behaviors ......................... 30 Implicit Leadership Theories and Leader-Member Exchange .................. 31 Follower‟s Self-Concept ....................................................................................... 33 Self-Concept and Leadership Behaviors ................................................... 35 Self-Concept and Leader-Member Exchange ........................................... 37 Summary ............................................................................................................... 37

III. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 39 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 39 Research Design and Variables ............................................................................ 40 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 44 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 47 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 51 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-MDM) ................................................ 53 Leadership Behaviors (MLQ 5X) ............................................................. 56 Self-Concept ............................................................................................. 57 Implicit Leadership Theories .................................................................... 58

viii Chapter Page Demographic Variables ............................................................................ 60 Outcome Variables.................................................................................... 60 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 61 Summary ............................................................................................................... 62

IV. Analysis and Presentation of Findings ....................................................................... 63 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 63 Characteristics of the Sample................................................................................ 63 Data Characteristics .................................................................................. 63 Respondent Characteristics ....................................................................... 64 Reliability and Correlations of the Major Constructs ........................................... 66 Structural Equation Modeling Process.................................................................. 68 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Major Constructs ....................................... 70 Leader-Member Exchange ........................................................................ 71 Leadership Behaviors................................................................................ 71 Self-Concept ............................................................................................. 75 ILT Absolute Differences ......................................................................... 81 Perceived Organizational Support ............................................................ 84 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Full Model ................................................. 87 Development of the Full Measurement Model ..................................................... 88 Tests for Mediation ............................................................................................... 95 Tests for Moderation ............................................................................................. 98 Results of Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................ 102

V. Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................... 107 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 107 Summary of Results and Discussion................................................................... 108 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 115 Implications of the Study .................................................................................... 117 Practical Implications.......................................................................................... 118 Methodological Implications .............................................................................. 118 Future Research .................................................................................................. 119

Appendix A. Script for Research Coordinator ............................................................................... 121 B. Leader Member Exchange (LMX -MDM) ............................................................... 125 C. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) .................................................... 127 D. Level of Self-Concept Scale (LSCS) ........................................................................ 129

ix Appendix Page E. Implicit Leadership Theories (ILT) .......................................................................... 131 F. Turnover Intentions and Organizational Identification Surveys ............................... 133 G. Perceived Organizational Support Measurement Model .......................................... 135 H. Leader-Member Exchange Measurement Model...................................................... 143 I. Leadership Behaviors Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................... 151 J. Self-Concept Model Development ........................................................................... 160 K. ILT Absolute Difference Measurement Model ......................................................... 173 L. Confirmatory Factor Analyses .................................................................................. 180 M. Full Measurement Model 1: Baseline ....................................................................... 185 N. Full Measurement Model 2: Co-Variances Added ................................................... 189 O. Final, Full Measurement Model 3: Removal of Anti-Prototype ............................... 200 P. Full Structural Model: Test for Mediation ................................................................ 205 Q. Survey Instruments: Waves 1, 2, & 3 ....................................................................... 209 R. Perceived Organizational Support Survey ................................................................ 224 S. Supplemental Variables ............................................................................................ 226

References Cited ............................................................................................................. 230 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 255

x List of Tables Table Page 1. Pertinent Literature on LMX Development for New Employees ............................... 18 2. Survey Plan ................................................................................................................. 42 3. Survey Responses: Waves 1, 2, and 3......................................................................... 45 4. Longitudinal Survey Timing ....................................................................................... 46 5. Independent T-test of Means: Differences between Final Sample and Non- respondents ................................................................................................................. 47 6. Published Reliability and Validity of Key Scales ....................................................... 52 7. Key Demographics of the Sample .............................................................................. 65 8. Key Work Characteristics ........................................................................................... 66 9. Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-Order Intercorrelations, and Reliabilities of Major Study Variables (N=210) ............................................................................................ 67 10. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Leadership Behaviors Model Development .............. 74 11. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Self-Concept Model Development ........................... 76 12. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Internal Consistency Reliabilities for Self-concept Levels Wave 1 and Wave 2 (N=210) ............................................... 79 13. Self Concept Means Test and Correlation: ................................................................. 80 14. Absolute Differences Test for Implicit Leadership Prototypes .................................. 82 15. Absolute Differences Test for Implicit Leadership Anti-Prototypes .......................... 83 16. Summary of Key Variables with Measurement Modifications .................................. 86 17. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Full Model ............................................................. 87 18. Fit Indices for Full Measurement Model Comparisons .............................................. 93

xi Table Page 19. Regression Weights and Estimates for Key Variables: .............................................. 94 20. Mediation Tests of LMX on Leadership Behaviors and Outcomes ........................... 97 21. Hierarchical Regression Moderation Tests on Leadership Behaviors and LMX ....... 99 22. Summary of Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................... 106

xii List of Figures Figure Page 1. Research Model ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Research Model .......................................................................................................... 43 3. Hypotheses, 1–7 .......................................................................................................... 50 4. Final, Structural Model ............................................................................................... 70 5. Leader-Member Exchange Measurement Model........................................................ 71 6. Hypothesized Research Model of Leadership Behaviors ........................................... 72 7. Final Leadership Behaviors Measurement Model ...................................................... 75 8. Self-concept Measurement Model 4 ........................................................................... 77 9. ILT Absolute Difference Measurement Model ........................................................... 84 10. Perceived Organizational Support Measurement Model ............................................ 85 11. Full Measurement Model 1, Baseline: Not Positive Definite ..................................... 89 12. Full Measurement Model 2 with Covariances ............................................................ 90 13. Full Measurement Model 3 With Removal of Anti-prototype ................................... 92 14. Tests for Mediation ..................................................................................................... 96 15. Tests for Moderation: Leadership Behaviors, ILT, Self-Concept Levels ................. 101

1 Chapter I Introduction Leadership research has predominately focused on the unidirectional effect a leader has upon a follower without considering the reciprocity and mutual influence of the relationship (Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Meindl, 1990). Despite extensive research on the behavioral outcomes associated with leadership behaviors and leader-member exchanges (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), the underlying processes that produce behavioral outcomes in followers are still unclear. Multiple calls have been made to expand our knowledge of the interactions within the leader-follower dyad to improve the application of leadership theory and reduce unexplained variation in leader and follower performance (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Lord & Brown, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; D. van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). Purpose of the Research The overarching objective of the present study is obtaining a greater understanding of the antecedents to a high quality leader-member exchange. More specifically, this research explores how a follower‟s self-concept and implicit leadership theories (ILT) interact with transformational leadership behaviors to influence the development of leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX development is considered in the context of new employees beginning their entry into an organization. Research Objectives This research will explore the following research questions: (a) Do transformational and transactional leadership behaviors influence the development of

2

LMX; (b) what influence does a follower‟s ILT and self-concept have on the development of LMX; (c) to what degree does a follower‟s ILT and self-concept moderate the relationship between leadership behaviors and LMX; and (d) with the aforementioned variable relationships and interactions, what differential effects are realized in subordinate outcomes, such as perceived organizational support, turnover intentions, and organizational identification? The primary variable relationships explored through this research are represented in Figure 1.

3

Figure 1. Research model. Organizational

Identification

Perceived Organizational Support

Leadership Behaviors

Transformational

Transactional

Implicit Leadership Theories

Self -

Concept

Individual

Relational

Collective

Leader –

Member Exchange

Turnover Intentions

4

Importance of the Topic Understanding the role of a follower‟s ILT and self-concept is a valuable extension of existing theories and may provide a more precise understanding of the leader-follower dyad within the context of leadership behaviors and LMX development. The theoretical extensions provided by this research are useful for five major reasons. First, the outcomes produced by leadership behaviors are well documented (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996) as having positive effects on follower job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, intentions to leave, organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Vandenberghe, Stordeur, D‟hoore, 2002; Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005). The effect of leadership behaviors on followers, particularly transformational behaviors, has demonstrated increased self-actualization, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Kark & Shamir, 2002a, 2002b; Shamir, Zakay, & Popper, 1998). Clearly, extending our knowledge of how leadership behaviors produce such favorable follower outcomes would be beneficial to organizations so leaders and followers can consciously promote such behaviors. Secondly, leader-member exchange research has demonstrated a plethora of positive outcomes on subordinate outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, follower sense of well being, turnover intentions, citizenship behaviors, and performance all have been documented as positive outcomes

5

of a high quality LMX (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995; Scandura & Graen, 1984). However, actual turnover has shown equivocal correlations with LMX (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Understanding the antecedents to the development of high quality LMX offers favorable benefits to both the follower and leader. Third, understanding the relationship between leadership behaviors and the development of high quality LMX relationships could extend current leadership theory. The results of Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) showing LMX as a mediator of transformational leadership lends support to the concept of transformational leadership behaviors as nourishing LMX development. LMX is believed to personalize leadership behaviors into the dyadic relationship between a follower and leader (Basu & Green, 1997; Wang et al., 2005). Initially termed vertical dyad theory, LMX rests in both role theory and exchange theory. Over time, LMX has been extended as a developmental process that begins with a transactional process and evolves through four stages into a transformational relationship (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Incorporating the role of a follower‟s self-concept and implicit leadership theories will provide greater understanding of how the linkages between leadership behaviors and LMX development are established. Fourth, the perceptual and cognitive processes of a follower are central to understanding the role of cognition in the development of the leader-follower dyad (Lord & Maher, 1991). Follower perceptions can play a vital role in the development of relationships and attribution of leader behaviors (Keller-Hansbrough, 2005; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999; Shamir, 2007). Ehrhart and Klein (2001) found significant variation in

6

how followers perceive and interpret leadership behaviors based on eight follower characteristics. These findings, however, explained only small variations in leadership preferences, and their research called for a greater understanding of follower characteristics to differentiate the effects of leader behaviors. Further, the integration of a follower into a new organizational culture is influenced by cognitive processes, which may have important implications for a follower‟s collective identity, self-esteem, and motivation (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Understanding the role of a follower‟s ILT and self-concept as an antecedent to organizational socialization could be a valuable extension of existing leadership theory (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). Finally, the fifth major benefit of this research is the potential for new applications in leader and follower training by considering LMX as a prescriptive process (Huang, Wright, Warren, & Wang, 2008). Incorporating the role of a follower‟s ILT and self-concept can significantly enhance organizational training. The training of leaders in transformational leadership behaviors has been well documented (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Dvir et al., 2002), but if leaders understand the role of a follower‟s self-concept and ILT, then a follower‟s performance may be enhanced (Lord & Maher, 1990). Further, if the role of a follower‟s self-concept and ILT are understood, the socialization process of a follower with a new leader and organization could be improved (Engle & Lord, 1997). Followers also could be trained to modify expectations about leaders to align ILT with actual leader behaviors (Schyns & Meindl, 2005). In summary, the aforementioned research indicates there are many benefits to extending our knowledge of how the follower‟s ILT and self-concept interact with leadership behaviors and contribute to the development of high quality leader-member

7

exchanges. This research has significant implications for extending the performance of the leader-follower dyad and by extension, numerous behavioral outcomes. Further, organizations potentially can benefit by incorporating a follower‟s self-concept and implicit leadership theories into applicant screening or leadership development. Introduction of the Research Problem This research utilizes four theoretical constructs to address the research questions previously discussed. These include leader-member exchange, transformational leadership, implicit leadership theories, and self-verification theory. Chapters II and III will provide an expanded review of key literature and research hypotheses in relation to these constructs. A summary of key issues addressed in this study is provided. Multiple researchers have called for a greater understanding of how LMX develops between a follower and leader (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Yukl, 2006). Bauer and Green (1996) have called for additional research on the role of the follower personality characteristics in the development of LMX, while Erdogan and Liden (2002) called for greater differentiation between individual and group effects. This research will address these gaps in existing knowledge by evaluating LMX development of new employees and incorporating key follower characteristics as antecedents to LMX development. Longitudinal research on LMX has been limited (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Yukl, 2006). The research is particularly scarce on the development of LMX with new employees entering an organization. The LMX relationship can change over time (Gerstner & Day, 1997), but research completed on new employees indicates the quality of LMX can be predicted as early as five days after organizational entry (Liden, Wayne,

8

& Stilwell, 1993). Erdogan and Liden (2002) and Parsons, Liden, and Bauer (2001) propose that pre-entry expectations may influence the relationship with a dyadic partner. No research has been identified that incorporates the role of a follower‟s ILT and self- concept level with LMX development. Despite a plethora of research on transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, and the theoretical linkages between the two theories, only five studies have integrated the two theories empirically (Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Wang et al., 2005). Gerstner and Day (1997) identified that LMX and transformational leadership had multiple conceptual relationships. Even in the seminal works on vertical dyad linkage theory, a precursor to existing LMX theory, transformational leadership behaviors were considered a key element in the development of follower-leader relationships (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). In a more recent study, Wang et al. (2005) determined that transformational leadership behaviors were fully mediated by leader-member exchange. This research will evaluate the role of the follower‟s self-concept and implicit leadership theories (ILT) upon the interaction of transformational leadership behaviors and the development of a high quality relationship with a leader. It is expected that transformational behaviors will be fully mediated by LMX as demonstrated by Wang et al. (2005). Consistent with Erdogan and Liden (2002, 2006), LMX is expected to differ depending on the level of individualism versus relational and collective identity of the follower. A follower‟s level of self-concept and ILT congruence are expected to moderate the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and LMX.

9

These two follower variables and corresponding research related to transformational leadership and leader-member exchange are elaborated in Chapter II. Contribution to the Literature This research provides an incremental contribution to the leadership literature on LMX development and the effects of leadership behaviors. Most leadership research has positioned the follower as a mere actor versus active participant in the leader-follower dyad. The approach utilized herein places the cognitive characteristics of implicit leadership theories and self-concept as key moderators of leadership behaviors and LMX development. The follower applies cognitive filters and adapts through a process of self- verification. In this study, leadership behaviors are treated as environmental conditions within which the follower interacts. This interaction influences the development of the leader-member exchange. The development of LMX utilizing the ILT congruence and self-concept alignment with leadership behaviors is an additional contribution of this research. In this context, ILT congruence and the self-concept are considered antecedents to LMX development. In addition to LMX literature, this research may add to research on social cognition theory. The Plan of Study Given the aforementioned objectives, the typology applied in this research is a process-oriented, prescriptive framework (McElroy, 1982). The study will be conducted as a correlational field study. ILT perceptions and self-concept measures are measured longitudinally over two time periods. The research setting includes one organization and will be described in detail in Chapter III. Multiple researchers have identified the need for careful consideration of levels of analysis in leadership research (Yammarino &

10

Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, & Chun, 2002; Yukl, 2006). The level of analysis in this research is the individual. Surveys were administered at three time intervals. The first survey (T1) was administered following an accepted employment offer during the first day of organizational orientation. Organizational policy dictated that all employees must complete orientation prior to beginning work. The second survey (T2) was distributed at approximately 30 days following the first day of employment, and the final wave was administered at approximately 90 days from T1. Surveys were administered via paper. Participation in the survey process was voluntary. The survey instruments are detailed in Chapter III. All survey instruments have been previously utilized and validated in published research in the areas of leadership, LMX, and social cognition. In addition to the primary variables previously discussed, demographic variables, professional experience, work experience, and outcome variables are specifically tested. The outcome variables include perceived organizational support, turnover intentions, and organizational identification. Further discussion of these outcome variables is presented in Chapter II.

11 Chapter II Review of Literature The current chapter reviews the pertinent literature related to leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, implicit leadership theories, and the self-concept. This chapter is organized around the stated research objectives and provides the basis for the hypotheses presented in Chapter III. The first section will discuss leader-member exchange theory, with particular attention given to the development process between a leader and follower. Secondly, leadership behaviors are discussed to show how they may influence the development of LMX. The final two sections discuss the literature on a follower‟s implicit leadership theories and self-concept as they relate to leader-member exchange, and leadership behaviors. Leader-Member Exchange Leader-Member Exchange Theory. Leader-member exchange first was introduced by Dansereau et al. (1975) as vertical dyad linkage theory (VDL) (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Initially focused on understanding the differentiation in leader behaviors towards subordinates through role making (Graen & Cashman, 1975), LMX has evolved into a multidimensional construct (Dinesch & Liden, 1986) and is one of the most studied and useful approaches to understanding the effects of leadership in organizations (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997). As a relationship-based theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), LMX offered alternatives to the traditional leadership theories centered on leadership traits and behaviors (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Van Breukelen, Schyns, & Le Blanc, 2006). Further, it differed from the

12

prevailing average leadership style (ALS) theory by introducing individualized dyadic relationships between a leader and follower (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Leadership is comprised of the follower, leader, and the relationship construct (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1992). LMX operationalizes the relationship construct and stipulates the benefits of leadership as the product of the relationship between the leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As it pertains to the relationship development process between a leader and follower, LMX has progressed through four stages of theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Scandura & Lankau, 1996). Initially, VDL validated leadership differentiation in work units. The second stage was validation of relationships at the dyadic level. It is this relationship between a leader and follower that has been described as the principal focus of LMX theory (Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999; Van Breukelen et al., 2006). The theory then progressed into a prescriptive method on the leadership process. Finally, the fourth evolution of LMX theory centers on the team making aspects of how dyads develop and function at a system level (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The focus of this research is on the development of the LMX relationship. As an extension of VDL, LMX was grounded in social exchange theory and initially described as transactional leadership (Graen & Cashman, 1975). In their LMX research, leaders developed differential relationships between followers, which in turn implied variation in leadership approaches (Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2000; Dansereau et al., 1975). These variable relationships between a leader and followers are categorized as in-groups (high exchange) and out-groups (low exchanges) (Dansereau et al., 1975). High exchange relationships exhibit stronger support and increased latitude in tasks, trust,

13

liking, loyalty, and performance that extend beyond formal job requirements (Dinesch & Liden, 1986; Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003; Yukl, 2006). Low exchange relationships are described as supervisory in nature with more formal, contractual, quid pro quo exchanges. As the theory progressed, LMX evolved as a leadership-making model to include the concepts of transformational behaviors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High quality exchanges are transformational while low quality exchanges are considered transactional (Bass, 1985; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Van Breukelen et al., 2006; Yukl, 2006). The relationship focus of LMX recognizes that leaders do not treat all followers equally nor do all followers react equally to leadership behaviors (Erdogan & Liden, 2002, 2006; Graen & Cashman, 1975). However, multiple calls have been made to better understand the relational aspects of LMX (Van Breukelen et al., 2006) and the characteristics of the follower that affect the strength of LMX (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000). This research provides additional insight into the interaction of leadership behaviors, follower characteristics, and the development of the LMX relationship. The construct of LMX has been inconsistently defined (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). However, the dominant theoretical definition describes the basic unit of analysis of LMX as the quality of the exchange (Schriesheim et al., 1999; Van Breukelen et al., 2006). Dinesch and Liden (1986) conceptualized LMX as multidimensional and identified the dimensions as mutual affect, contribution, and loyalty. This contrasts with the position of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) that identified respect, trust, and obligation as the primary dimensions. However, these

14

items are so highly intercorrelated, it is recommended LMX be considered unidimensional (Van Breukelen et al., 2006). Since Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) completed their work, multiple studies have identified alternative domains to include liking, attention, latitude, and mutual support (Engle, 1996; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). In the development of their multi-dimensional model of LMX, Liden and Maslyn (1998) found support for a four-factor model that included affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect. Despite the variations on the dimensions of LMX, there is strong support that the LMX construct contains elements of relationship and not purely exchange quality (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Van Breukelen et al., 2006). While the outcomes associated with high quality leader member exchanges are well documented (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997), our understanding of how a leader and follower develop their relationship is still unclear (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000; Van Breukelen et al., 2006). Few studies on LMX have incorporated longitudinal designs, and little research has focused on the situational variables or antecedents, which influence the development of the exchange between a leader and follower (Erdogan & Liden, 2002, 2006; Yukl, 2006). Development of leader-member exchange. This section will present the three dominant theories on how LMX develops between a leader and follower, research on follower characteristics in the LMX relationship, and the literature related to followers developing new dyadic relationships. The first dominant model of LMX development was described by Graen and Scandura (1987) and then elaborated upon by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991, 1995). This model extends the early work on VDL (Graen & Cashman, 1975) and categorizes LMX development into three distinct phases. These include role

15

making, role taking, and role routinization. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991, 1995) describe these three phases as stranger, acquaintance, and maturity. In the role-making stage, the relationship is described as low in LMX, transactional, and role finding. The acquaintance stage involves both the leader and follower in role influence and medium levels of LMX. Finally, the maturity phase reflects a higher LMX, transformational behaviors oriented to the collective, and a movement away from a quid-pro-quo exchange (Van Breukelen et al., 2006). A second model developed by Scandura and Lankau (1996) extends the three- stage development model to integrate diversity along with social and psychological processes into LMX development. In their theory, self-knowledge, interpersonal skills, communication competence, and cultural competence of the follower moderate the development of the LMX dyad. Further, individuals with higher self-knowledge, self- awareness, esteem, and social obligations can overcome diversity barriers in LMX. This development process has particular application to this research, as the moderation effects of follower characteristics upon the LMX relationship are tested. A final model applicable to this research focuses on the human resource management aspects of LMX development. In their model, Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) utilize a similar role-making and role-taking construct as previous theorists. However, the model focuses on the entry of new employees into an organization or the acquaintance phase of the relationship. They describe the process as role finding, role making, and role implementation. In their view, the LMX relationship is dependent upon the characteristics of the individual (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). These characteristics include predispositions toward interpersonal interactions and psychological makeup. Secondly,

16

the development of the LMX relationship is influenced by an individual‟s expectations. These expectations can include prior experiences, information, and implicit leadership theories (Lord & Maher, 1991). Finally, the interactions between the leader and follower create iterative reactions and evaluations. How a follower responds to these interactions ultimately influences the quality of the LMX (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). This research directly explores this development theory. While there have been multiple calls for increased investigation on the initial development of LMX, most of the research has been cross-sectional (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000; Van Breukelen et al., 2006; Yukl, 2006). There is a plethora of studies identifying antecedents to LMX (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997). These antecedents can be categorized into four domains of follower characteristics, leader characteristics, leader-member congruence, and contextual variables (Erdogan & Liden, 2002). Of particular note to this research is the role of follower‟s characteristics as they relate to the development of the LMX relationship. While a body of research has evaluated compatibility between leader and follower on a wide range of variables (Erdogan & Liden, 2002, 2006; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), this research evaluates the specific contribution of a follower‟s self-concept and congruence of implicit leadership theories from the member‟s perspective. Neither leader perceptions nor member-leader congruence of implicit leadership theories were considered. Other follower characteristics that have been identified as antecedents of LMX include growth need strength (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986), locus of control (Harris, Harris, & Eplion, 2007), self-efficacy (Murphy & Ensher, 1999), self-effort (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001), individualism versus collectivism (Scandura & Williams, 2002), and

Full document contains 279 pages
Abstract:   This longitudinal study evaluates the role of a follower's self-concept and implicit leadership theories on the interpretation of transformational leadership behaviors and the development of leader-member exchange. Leadership behaviors were hypothesized as antecedents to leader-member exchange. The hypotheses draw upon the social cognition theory of self-verification. Implicit leadership theories were evaluated as absolute differences between actual and recognized leadership behaviors. Both implicit leadership theories and self-concepts were tested for moderation of the leadership behaviors and leader-member exchange. Additional dependent variables included turnover intentions, organizational identification, and perceived organizational support. A key contribution of this research is the application of these variables to new organizational entrants. Two-hundred and ten new followers at a single organization completed three surveys upon organizational entry, 30 days post hire, and approximately 90 days post hire. Structural equation modeling was utilized to conduct confirmatory factor analyses and the development of the measurement and structural models. Leadership behaviors were significantly related to the development of leader-member exchange. Leader-member exchange also fully mediated the leadership behaviors. The collective and relational self-concept levels were correlated with leader-member exchange but failed to reach significance in the full structural model. Implicit leadership theories and absolute difference scores were significantly related to leader-member exchange development. Neither the self-concept nor implicit leadership theories moderated the relationship between leadership behaviors and leader-member exchange. Leader-member exchange had significant effects on all of the outcome variables.