The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Leader behavior and LMX:

a constructive replication

Leader behavior
and LMX

Mark ODonnell
Department of Business Administration, York College of Pennsylvania, York,
Pennsylvania, USA, and

143

Gary Yukl and Thomas Taber

Department of Management, UAlbany (State University of New York), Albany,
New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine if the relationships found between a leaders
behavior and the quality of the exchange relationship with a subordinate can be replicated using a
different measure of leader-member exchange (LMX) and a different sample.
Design/methodology/approach The paper reports the result of a survey study with a sample of
239 employees who rated specific behaviors of their manager and the quality of the LMX relationship.
Findings In a regression analysis that included several other important leader behaviors,
supporting, delegating, and leading by example were statistically significant predictors of LMX.
Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that the positive relationship found in
several earlier studies between LMX and a broad measure of transformational leadership was not
interpreted correctly.
Practical implications The results from this study identify specific leader behaviors that are
likely to be useful for developing a stronger exchange relationship with individual subordinates.
Social implications The leader behaviors identified in the present study also have clear
implications for the effectiveness of top executives and political leaders.
Originality/value More types of leadership behavior were measured than in earlier LMX studies,
the limitations of broadly-defined behaviors were avoided, and a different measure of LMX was used
than in most prior studies on the relationship of leader behaviors to LMX.
Keywords United States of America, Leadership, Managers, Employees behaviour, Leader behaviour,
Leader-member exchange
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the dyadic process by which a leader
develops a relationship with each subordinate (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen and
Cashman, 1975). The theory emphasizes that a leaders relationship often varies from one
subordinate to another and that high quality LMX relationships are developed with
some subordinates whereas low quality LMX relationships are developed with other
subordinates. LMX has been found to correlate positively with several desirable
outcomes, including: subordinate performance, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment (Gerstner and Day, 1997). Liao et al. (2010) also recently found a statistically
significant relationship between LMX and employee creativity, and Wilson et al. (2010)
speculated that there are likely additional benefits of achieving high LMX relationships
such as employee willingness to share important information with the leader.
Studies on antecedents of LMX have examined leader and member characteristics
(Nahrgang et al., 2009; Schyns et al., 2008), temporary versus full time employment

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Vol. 27 No. 2, 2012
pp. 143-154
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211199545

JMP
27,2

144

status of the subordinate (Lamude et al., 2000), and a leaders upward and lateral social
network ties (Venkataramani et al., 2010). A recent study by Mahsud et al. (2010) found
that relations-oriented behavior fully mediated the effects of leader empathy on LMX,
and their findings suggest that leader behavior has a more direct effect on LMX than
other leader characteristics that have been examined as antecedents of LMX.
Only a few studies have included leader behavior as the focal antecedent of LMX,
and they have limitations that make it difficult to determine how leaders actually
influence exchange relationships. One limitation is to use only a broadly-defined
measure of transformational leadership behavior as the antecedent (Yukl, 1999, 2010).
Transformational leadership involves behaviors that motivate subordinates to achieve
more than they initially expected (Bass, 1985). In total, eight studies found that LMX
was related to a composite measure of transformational leadership (Basu and Green,
1997; Bettencourt, 2004; Howell and Hall-Merenda, 1999; Lee, 2008; Piccolo and
Colquitt, 2006; Pillai et al., 1999; Tse and Lam, 2008; Wang et al., 2005). A study by
Deluga (1992) examined how specific types of transformational leader behavior are
related to LMX; in the multiple regression analysis a statistically significant positive
relationship was found for individualized consideration and idealized influence, but not
for inspirational motivation or intellectual stimulation. The study showed that specific
component behaviors have different effects on LMX, and when only the meta-category
is used in an analysis these differences will not be discovered. Another limitation of the
earlier studies is failure to include some types of leadership behavior likely to influence
LMX but not included in the measure of transformational or transactional leadership,
such as recognizing, consulting, and delegating. Taken together, these two limitations
mean that it is difficult to interpret a significant correlation between transformational
leadership and LMX.
A recent study by Yukl et al. (2009) included a much broader range of specific leader
behaviors and found that several of these behaviors had positive, independent effects
on the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship. However, the Yukl et al.
(2009) study did not include the transformational behavior called intellectual
stimulation, which involves encouraging subordinates to question their assumptions
about the work and find better ways to do it (Bass, 1985). In addition, the Yukl et al.
(2009) study employed the LMX-7, which some scholars view as too limited in scope as
a measure of exchange relationships.
The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the results from the
study by Yukl et al. (2009) with a different sample, a different measure of LMX, and a
more comprehensive measure of leadership behavior. The present study includes an
important transformational behavior that was not in the study by Yukl et al. (2009),
and it uses the LMX-MDM rather than the LMX-7 as the measure of leader-member
relations. The LMX-MDM was developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998) to address what
they saw as deficiency in the LMX-7. Liden and Maslyn (1998) found that the
LMX-MDM explained more variance than the LMX-7 when predicting various
outcome variables such as satisfaction with supervision and turnover intentions.
Replication studies offer the opportunity to further validate or disconfirm the results of
prior studies, and they are especially beneficial for verifying the findings of
same-source survey studies. A replication can demonstrate that the findings from an
earlier same-source survey study were not merely statistical artifacts or exclusive to
the original sample (Schwab, 2005).

Hypotheses
As this study is a constructive replication, the hypotheses are similar to those in Yukl
et al. (2009). Each of the five hypotheses is listed next, and a more detailed rationale for
each hypothesis can be found in the article by Yukl et al. (2009):
H1. The amount of supporting behavior used by a manager with a subordinate is
positively related to the quality of the exchange relationship with the subordinate.
Supporting behavior was explicitly mentioned in the early LMX literature as a type of
behavior that fosters a high exchange relationship (Graen and Cashman, 1975).
Supporting is similar to individualized consideration in transformational leadership
theory. A positive relationship between the amount of supporting behavior used by a
manager and LMX was found in Yukl et al. (2009):
H2. The amount of developing behavior used by a manager with a subordinate is
positively related to the quality of the exchange relationship with the subordinate.
Developing includes coaching and developmental opportunities to increase a
subordinates relevant skills and advance the subordinates career. This type of
leadership behavior is likely to increase a subordinates perception that the leader cares
about the welfare of the subordinate. Developing was correlated with LMX in the study
by Yukl et al. (2009), but it was not a statistically significant predictor in the multiple
regression analysis:
H3. The amount of recognizing behavior used by a manager with a subordinate is
positively related to the quality of the exchange relationship with the subordinate.
Recognition of a subordinates achievements and contributions to the work unit shows
appreciation of the subordinate and is likely to improve the interpersonal relationship.
A positive relationship between the amount of recognizing behavior used by a
manager and LMX was found in Yukl et al. (2009):
H4. The amount of consulting behavior used by a manager with a subordinate is
positively related to the quality of the exchange relationship with the
subordinate.
Consulting involves checking with people before making decisions that affect them,
encouraging participation in decision making, and using the ideas and suggestions of
others. This type of behavior signals that the leader respects and values a
subordinates ideas, and it is consistent with the conception of a high quality exchange
relationship in LMX theory. A positive relationship between the amount of consulting
behavior used by a manager and LMX was found by Yukl et al. (2009):
H5. The amount of delegation used by a manager with a subordinate is positively
related to the quality of the exchange relationship with the subordinate.
Delegating is another key leader behavior suggested by LMX theory for a
high-exchange relationship. Delegated responsibilities convey a leaders confidence in
a subordinates skills and motivation, which can enhance the subordinates view of that
relationship (Yukl et al., 2009). Yukl et al. (2009) found a statistically significant and
positive relationship between the amount of delegation used by a manager and LMX,
and it is likely that reciprocal causality is involved.

Leader behavior
and LMX

145

JMP
27,2

146

No hypotheses were proposed for three transformational behaviors that are not
relations-oriented (e.g. envisioning, leading by example, and encouraging innovative
thinking). There is no strong conceptual framework to explain a causal effect, and in
each case there are good reasons to doubt that a positive effect will occur. Envisioning
is similar to inspirational motivation in transformational leadership theory, and it was
not a statistically significant predictor of LMX in the study by Yukl et al. (2009).
Leaders with a radical vision often alienate subordinates who do not share their values
and priorities or who doubt that the vision is feasible. Mutual trust and respect will be
undermined for subordinates who resist the sacrifices and changes required to
implement the leaders vision.
Leading by example is similar to idealized influence in transformational leadership
theory, and a statistically significant relationship was found with LMX in the earlier
study. However, there are credible reasons why a relationship may only occur in
limited situations. Leading by example may impress subordinates that the leader
actually believes in his/her espoused values and priorities, but subordinates may not
agree with those values (Yukl et al., 2009). Moreover, the behaviors modeled by the
leader may not motivate subordinates to improve their task performance. For example,
the leader may demonstrate compliance with bureaucratic rules and regulations or
loyalty to traditional strategies that are no longer relevant for effective performance.
Encouraging innovation is similar to intellectual stimulation in transformational
leadership theory. This behavior was not included in the earlier study, but it is unlikely
to improve relations with subordinates if it raises fears that the leader wants to make
changes that are not beneficial to them. For example, if the leader encourages
subordinates to find ways to do the work more efficiently, they may perceive it as an
effort to exploit them and to dismiss some of them who are no longer needed.
Methods
Sample
The sample included 239 respondents from a diverse set of industries, organizations,
and occupations. The sample of respondents included 51 percent males, 44 percent
females, and 5 percent of respondents who did not indicate their gender. The mean age
of respondents was approximately 41 years. Of the respondents, 25 percent held
professional positions, and the next three most frequent types of jobs were sales
positions (20 percent), managerial positions (18 percent), and technical positions (11
percent). The respondents were subordinates of 73 middle-level or lower-level
managers. Analyses were carried out at the dyadic level rather than at the group level
because leaders seldom have the same type of exchange relationship with each
subordinate, and leader behavior may vary somewhat from one subordinate to another.
Measure of leader-member exchange
The LMX-MDM is a 12-item questionnaire that includes four subscales (affect, loyalty,
professional respect, and contribution), and each subscale has three items. Affect refers
to the subordinates liking of the supervisor of a dyad. A sample item is I like my
supervisor very much as a person (Liden and Maslyn, 1998, p. 56). Loyalty refers to
the extent to which the subordinate feels the leader will publicly support the
subordinates actions and character. A sample item is My supervisor would come to
my defense if I were attacked by others (Liden and Maslyn, 1998, p. 56). Professional

respect refers to the subordinates perception of the degree to which his or her
supervisor excels at work. A sample item is I respect my supervisors knowledge of
and competence on the job (Liden and Maslyn, 1998, p. 56). Contribution refers to the
degree to which the subordinate is willing to work hard and apply extra effort to meet
his or her supervisors work goals. A sample item is I do work for my supervisor that
goes beyond what is specified in my job description (Liden and Maslyn, 1998, p. 68).
The complete items for the LMX-MDM can be found in Liden and Maslyn (1998). Each
item in our study had a seven-point Likert response format with anchors for each
response choice (1 Disagree Strongly to 7 Agree Strongly).
Validation evidence for the construct validity of the LMX-MDM is provided by
several studies, including some that conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the
LMX-MDM (e.g. Erdogan and Enders, 2007; Wang et al., 2005). The component scales
of the LMX-MDM are highly inter-correlated, so it is common to aggregate the scales to
form an overall measure of relationship quality. Prior research suggests that the
LMX-MDM can be reliably employed as a single-factor measure to assess the overall
quality of LMX (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2010; Erdogan and Enders, 2007; Wang et al.,
2005). For example, Eisenberger et al. (2010) found the LMX-MDM correlated 0.28 with
in-role performance. We followed this precedent in the present study. The alpha value
for the composite score on the LMX-MDM in our study was 0.95.
Measure of leader behaviors
The 11 leadership behaviors included in the present study are defined in the following
list:
(1) Supporting: acting considerate, showing sympathy and support when someone
is upset or anxious, and providing encouragement and support when there is a
difficult, stressful task.
(2) Recognizing: providing praise and recognition for effective performance,
significant achievements, special contributions, and performance improvements.
(3) Developing: providing coaching and advice, providing opportunities for skill
development, and helping people learn how to improve their skills.
(4) Consulting: checking with people before making decisions that affect them,
encouraging participation in decision making, and using the ideas and
suggestions of others.
(5) Delegating: assigning new responsibilities and additional authority to carry
them out, and trusting people to solve problems and make decisions without
getting prior approval.
(6) Clarifying: assigning tasks and explaining job responsibilities, task objectives,
and performance expectations.
(7) Short-term planning: determining how to use personnel and resources to
accomplish a task efficiently, and determining how to schedule and coordinate
unit activities efficiently.
(8) Monitoring operations: checking on the progress and quality of the work, and
evaluating individual and unit performance.
(9) Leading by example: setting an example of exemplary behavior for subordinates,
and modeling behaviors that reflect the leaders values and standards.

Leader behavior
and LMX

147

JMP
27,2

(10) Envisioning change: describing appealing outcomes that can be achieved by the
unit, describing a proposed change with great enthusiasm and conviction.
(11) Encouraging innovative thinking: challenging people to question their
assumptions about the work and consider better ways to do it. Definitions
are adapted from Yukl et al. (2002) and Yukl et al. (2009).

148

Leader behaviors were measured with a short version of Yukls Managerial Practices
Survey (MPS). A short version was used to increase the likelihood that each participant
would complete the questionnaire, and most of the scales were the same as in the
earlier study by Yukl et al. (2009). Subordinates were asked to rate their respective
focal managers describing how much each type of leadership behavior was used by the
manager. Each type of leader behavior was measured with a three-item scale. All items
have the same response format, and five response choices indicated the extent to which
a behavior was used by the focal manager. These response choices were as follows:
.
1 Not at all;
.
2 To a limited extent;
.
3 To a moderate extent;
.
4 To a considerable extent; and
.
5 To a great extent.
A sixth response choice (Not applicable) was seldom used by respondents and was
coded as missing data. The scale score for a behavior is the mean item score.
Validation evidence for the construct validity of the MPS scales is provided by
several studies over the past two decades, including some that included factor analysis
of a version of the MPS with item order randomized (Yukl et al., 2002; Yukl et al., 1990).
Other research (e.g. Kim and Yukl, 1995) found that some of the behaviors are related
to independent criteria such as ratings of managerial effectiveness by a leaders peers
and boss, and the rate of advancement for a manager in the organization.
Data collection procedures
The survey for the present study was administered in 2008 by evening MBA students
to obtain data for their research projects. Most of the students gathered data in the
same organizations where they were employed in their regular daytime jobs. The
respondents included employees from those organizations. Data were collected either
with a printed questionnaire or a web-based application (Survey Monkey).
Respondents who elected to participate via the web-based application were emailed
a web site where they could confidentially complete the questionnaire. Confidentiality
was also guaranteed to respondents opting for the printed questionnaire.
Results
Table I shows the alpha values for the eleven leader behavior scales. Alpha values for
the MPS scales ranged from 0.87 to 0.96. Most of the behavior scale scores were slightly
lower in the present study than in the study by Yukl et al. (2009), but the standard
deviations are similar to those in the earlier study. Table II shows the zero-order
correlations between LMX and each of the leader behaviors in the present study. As is
typical for leader behavior description questionnaires, many of the behaviors were

Variable
Supporting
Recognizing
Developing
Consulting
Delegating
Clarifying
Short-term planning
Monitoring operations
Leading by example
Envisioning change
Encouraging innov.
Leader-member exchange

Mean

SD

Alpha

3.61
3.46
3.09
3.17
3.56
3.47
3.13
3.26
3.63
3.02
3.14
5.80

1.22
1.14
1.12
1.11
1.03
0.99
1.07
1.03
1.17
1.13
1.11
1.23

0.96
0.96
0.90
0.93
0.87
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.94
0.95
0.94
0.95

Note: n 239

1. Supporting
2. Recognizing
3. Developing
4. Consulting
5. Delegating
6. Clarifying
7. Planning
8. Monitoring
9. Leading by example
10. Envisioning change
11. Encouraging innov.
12. LMX

10

11

0.74
0.74
0.63
0.59
0.61
0.58
0.44
0.75
0.64
0.56
0.70

0.75
0.68
0.56
0.57
0.64
0.45
0.65
0.72
0.58
0.60

0.73
0.64
0.62
0.70
0.53
0.69
0.72
0.67
0.59

0.72
0.47
0.59
0.50
0.62
0.55
0.66
0.62

0.37
0.48
0.39
0.67
0.55
0.61
0.66

0.71
0.60
0.51
0.69
0.58
0.41

0.64
0.59
0.72
0.62
0.47

0.40
0.53
0.53
0.39

0.63
0.66
0.75

0.67
0.51

0.54

Notes: n 239; All correlations were statistically significant ( p , 0.01, two-tailed)

moderately or highly inter-correlated. The correlations between each leader behavior

and LMX are consistent with the findings in Yukl et al. (2009). Consistent with our five
hypotheses, supporting, recognizing, developing, consulting, and delegating had high
correlations with LMX.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationships when
controlling for inter-correlations among behaviors. Leader-member exchange was
regressed onto the eleven leader behaviors, which is a similar procedure to the one used
in the final step of the regression analysis by Yukl et al. (2009). Table III shows the
results of the regression analysis for the present study.
Supporting, delegating, and leading by example each had a statistically significant
relationship with LMX in the regression analysis. Recognizing, developing, and
consulting behaviors were not statistically significant predictors of LMX. Statistically
significant results were not found for any of the three task-oriented behaviors
(clarifying, short-term planning, and monitoring operations) or for envisioning change
or encouraging innovative thinking.

Leader behavior
and LMX

149

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
reliabilities

Table II.
Correlations for leader
behaviors and
leader-member exchange

JMP
27,2

150

Table III.
Results for multiple
regression analysis for
leader-member exchange

Leader behavior
Supporting
Recognizing
Developing
Consulting
Delegating
Clarifying
Planning
Monitoring
Leading by example
Envisioning change
Encouraging innovative thinking

Beta

0.29
0.06
2 0.12
0.13
0.20
2 0.05
2 0.04
0.07
0.43
2 0.05
2 0.01

3.85 *
0.87
2 1.51
1.77
3.05 *
2 0.75
2 0.62
1.34
6.06 *
2 0.72
2 0.10

Notes: R 0.81; R 2 0.65; Adjusted R 2 0.64; F 38.93 * *; df 11, 227; n 239; *p , 0.01

Discussion
The present study is the first to test the relationship between LMX as measured by the
LMX-MDM and a wide range of leader behaviors that may be antecedents of LMX. As
in the study by Yukl et al. (2009), statistically significant zero-order correlations were
found between LMX and each of the five relations-oriented behaviors (supporting,
recognizing, developing, consulting, and delegating) and with leading by example. In
the multiple regression analysis we replicated the finding by Yukl et al. (2009) that
supporting and leading by example were statistically significant predictors of LMX,
and these results are also consistent with the results found by Deluga (1992). We also
replicated the results for delegation as a predictor of LMX in the study by Yukl et al.
(2009), but unlike their study, our results for recognizing and consulting were not
statistically significant. One possible explanation for the discrepant results is the use of
a different LMX measure in each study. It may be helpful in future studies to include
both of the LMX measures. The high inter-correlations among the behaviors and the
reliance on a same-source measure of LMX are other possible reasons for the
discrepant results. Future studies should include an independent measure of leader
behavior and investigation of relationships as they develop over time.
Leading by example had a considerably stronger relationship with LMX in the
current study than in the study by Yukl et al. (2009). An experimental design would be
useful to determine the relative influence of the different behaviors on LMX and to
resolve the discrepant results in the two studies for recognizing and consulting.
Implications for theory
The pattern of results suggests that the positive relationship found in the earlier
studies between a broad measure of transformational leadership and LMX was not
interpreted correctly. In the current study and the one by Yukl et al. (2009), supporting
and leading by example were the only component transformational behaviors that
explained additional variance in LMX in the regression analysis. Supporting is part of
the individualized consideration component of transformational leadership, but it is
also the primary relations-oriented behavior in decades of leadership research
conducted before transformational leadership theory was proposed by Bass (1985). A
leader can be supportive without influencing the task motivation of subordinates. A

supportive leader may allow subordinates to set easy rather than difficult task goals, or
to avoid stressful aspects of the work.
Leading by example is part of the idealized influence component of transformational
leadership, but it is vague because the scale items do not describe what type of
behavior is modeled by the leader. A possible interpretation for the strength of this
relationship is that the modeled behaviors show concern for interpersonal relationships
and the welfare of subordinates. The high inter-correlations between leading by
example and the relations-oriented behaviors are consistent with this interpretation.
Leading by example is a key component of authentic leadership theory (Avolio and
Gardner, 2005), so the results may provide more support for that theory than for
transformational leadership theory. Qualitative measures (e.g. detailed diaries,
semi-structured interviews, videotaped interactions) and questionnaire items on
authentic leadership could be used in future research to explore the meaning of the
relationship between this leadership behavior and LMX.
Delegating is an empowering behavior that is not explicitly included in
commonly-used measures of transformational leadership, and it is highly correlated
with relationship-oriented behaviors such as supporting, consulting, and developing.
Prior research found that leaders typically delegate more to subordinates when there is
a high quality leader-member relationship (e.g. Yukl and Fu, 1999). Thus, reciprocal
causality is likely, and more research is needed with stronger methods to assess the
extent to which leader behavior is both a cause and an effect of LMX.
Future research
The above-noted recommendations for future research can be supplemented by research
examining important moderator variables regarding the relationship between leader
behavior and the quality of the leader-member exchange. One possible moderator
variable is the type of cultural values in the country where the leader is located. Pillai
et al. (1999) is one of the few studies to have examined the relationship between leader
behavior and LMX in multiple cultures, and the researchers found that the correlations
between transformational leadership and LMX in all five geographic regions of the world
that were included in their study varied substantially across geographic regions. The
findings suggest that cultural factors play an important role in determining how leader
behaviors affect the leader-member exchange relationship. The present work, as well as
Yukl et al. (2009), were conducted entirely in the United States, and research is needed to
determine if the findings can be replicated in different cultures.
Another moderator variable that provides exciting opportunities for future research
is leader skill in employing specific types of behavior. Most leader behavior research
measures the amount or frequency of each behavior rather than how skillfully the
behavior was executed. A leaders interpersonal skills are likely to moderate the
relationship between the amount of a particular leader behavior employed and the
quality of exchange relationship that is developed. For example, a leader who employs
a large amount of recognizing behaviors is likely to be more effective if the recognizing
is done skillfully rather than without much skill (see Yukl, 2010 for examples). Future
survey research on the effects of leader behaviors should measure the extent to which
the behavior was used in a skillful and timely way. Qualitative methods such as critical
incident diaries and semi-structured interviews that ask participants to describe how
skillfully a leader behavior was enacted would also be beneficial.

Leader behavior
and LMX

151

JMP
27,2

152

Practical implications
The results from this study identify specific leader behaviors that are used by
managers who have built strong relationships with individual subordinates. Each of
the relations-oriented behaviors that were examined (supporting, recognizing,
developing, consulting, and delegating) can be used in appropriate situations to
develop subordinate skills, confidence, and trust of the leader. Leading by example is a
useful way to strengthen commitment to shared values. Leaders who expect
subordinates to make sacrifices or to do more than is required in formal job
descriptions should be prepared to set an example in their own behavior.
It is important to remember that the quality of exchange relationships with
subordinates is only one of several relevant outcomes, and the overall effectiveness of a
leader also requires the appropriate use of other behaviors that do not directly affect
LMX. Relations, task, and change-oriented leader behaviors should be used in
consistent ways to achieve organizational objectives such as work unit performance.
Social implications
The implications of our findings about leader behavior are not limited to the middle
managers and supervisors included in our sample. Being supportive, empowering
people, and leading by example also have clear implications for the effectiveness of top
executives and political leaders. The importance of leading by example is shown by the
failure of top management at American Airlines to gain agreement for major
reductions in employee salaries and benefits when employees discovered that the
executives had recently awarded themselves lavish retention bonuses and
supplemental pensions (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2004). The recent rebellions against
leaders of some middle-eastern countries were motivated in part by resentment that
these leaders were exercising their power in a ruthless way and were enjoying a lavish
lifestyle while most of the population was suffering in poverty.
References
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-38.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Basu, R. and Green, S.G. (1997), Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership:
an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 477-99.
Bettencourt, L.A. (2004), Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: the direct
and moderating influence of goal orientation, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3,
pp. 165-80.
Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organization: a longitudinal investigation of the role making
process, Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-78.
Deluga, R.J. (1992), The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments, in Clark, K.E.,
Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative
Leadership, Greensboro, NC, pp. 237-47.
Eisenberger, R., Stinlhamber, F., Becker, T., Karagonlar, G., Neves, P., Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.
and Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010), Leader-member exchange and affective organizational

commitment: the contribution of supervisors organizational embodiment, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1085-103.
Erdogan, B. and Enders, J. (2007), Support from the top: supervisors perceived organizational
support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance
relationships, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 321-30.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-44.
Graen, G.B. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), A role making model of leadership in formal
organizations: a developmental approach, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership
Frontiers, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, pp. 143-65.
Howell, J.M. and Hall-Merenda, K.E. (1999), The ties that bind: the impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting
follower performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 680-94.
Kim, H. and Yukl, G. (1995), Relationships of self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership
behaviors to managerial effectiveness and advancement, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 361-77.
Lamude, K.G., Scudder, J. and Simmons, D. (2000), Perceptions of leader-member exchange:
comparison of permanent and temporary employees, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87 No. 2,
pp. 689-91.
Lee, J. (2008), Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 670-87.
Liao, H., Liu, D. and Loi, R. (2010), Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social
cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on
creativity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 1090-109.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical
assessment through scale development, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G. and Prussia, G. (2010), Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and
relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange quality, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 561-77.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. and 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, Vol. 108
No. 2, pp. 256-66.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), Transformational leadership and job behaviors:
the mediating role of core job characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 2, pp. 327-40.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (1999), Leadership and organizational justice:
similarities and differences across cultures, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 763-79.
Schwab, D. (2005), Research Methods for Organizational Studies, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Schyns, B., Kroon, B. and Moors, G. (2008), Follower characteristics and the perception of
leader-member exchange, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 772-88.
Tse, H.H. and Lam, W. (2008), Transformational leadership and turnover: the roles of LMX and
organizational commitment, paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,
Anaheim, CA.

Leader behavior
and LMX

153

JMP
27,2

154

Venkataramani, V., Green, S.G. and Schleicher, D.J. (2010), Well-connected leaders: the impact of
leaders social network ties on LMX and members work attitudes, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1071-84.
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.X. (2005), Leader-member exchange as
a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers
performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 420-32.
Wilson, K.S., Sin, H. and Conlon, D.E. (2010), What about the leader in leader-member exchange?
The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 358-72.
Yukl, G. (1999), An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Yukl, G. (2010), Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Yukl, G. and Fu, P. (1999), Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 219-32.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002), A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
integrating a half century of behavior research, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 15-32.
Yukl, G. and Lepsinger, R. (2004), Flexible Leadership: Creating Value by Balancing Multiple
Challenges and Choices, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Yukl, G., ODonnell, M. and Taber, T. (2009), Influence of leader behaviors on the leader-member
exchange relationship, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 289-99.
Yukl, G., Wall, S. and Lepsinger, R. (1990), Preliminary report on validation of the managerial
practices survey, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership
Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 223-38.
About the authors
Mark ODonnell received his PhD in Organizational Studies from the University at Albany (State
University of New York). He is an Assistant Professor of Management at York College of
Pennsylvania and his research interests include leader behavior, power and influence, and
leader-member exchange relationships. Mark ODonnell is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: modonnel@ycp.edu
Gary Yukl received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of
California at Berkeley. He is a Professor of Management at UAlbany (State University of New York)
and a Fellow of the Academy of Management and the Society for Industrial-Organizational
Psychology. His current research interests include leadership, power and influence, and
management development. He has received several awards for his research, and has published
many articles and several books, including Leadership in Organizations (Prentice Hall, 7th ed., 2010).
Thomas Taber received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a Professor of Management and Professor of
Organizational Studies in the School of Business at the State University of New York at Albany.
His research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, organizational change, work
motivation, and team leadership. Along with his colleagues, Robert Cooke and Jeffrey Walsh, he
received the Douglas McGregor Memorial Award for developing and evaluating a
community-based program to reduce the social impact of a plant closing.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints