Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University

2 Overview Leader Member Exchange --Social Exchange Statement of the Problem Hypotheses & Model Proposed Methods Contributions

3 Terms LMX - social exchange relationship between a subordinate and his or her supervisor (Liden et al., 1997; Erdogan & Liden, 2002) Social exchange - the “general expectation of some future return, [although] its exact nature is definitely not stipulated in advance” (Blau, 1964, p. 93)

4 Statement of the Problem Scholars assume, but have not yet empirically demonstrated, supervisors gain personal benefits from LMX relationships (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; van Brekuelen et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2010). Understanding how those benefits are acquired, such as behaviors and how moderators influence those behaviors

5 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Supervisor-rated LMX is positively related to subordinate-rated social support. Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the managerial span of control. The relationship will be strongest when span of control is smaller.

6 Hypotheses Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and subordinate-rated social support is moderated by the supervisor-rated LLX. Such that the relationship will be stronger when LLX is higher (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Wilson et al., 2010).

7 Hypotheses Hypothesis 4: Subordinate-rated social support partially mediates the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and the supervisor-rated performance of organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the supervisor (OCBIs) (Emerson, 1981; Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980).

8 Hypotheses Hypothesis 5: Subordinate-rated social support will mediate the relationship between supervisor-rated LMX and supervisor-rated OCBs. The first step of this relationship will be moderated by (a) supervisor-rated span of control and (b) supervisor-rated LLX.

9 Hypotheses Hypothesis 6: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor- rated level of satisfaction with their subordinate. Hypothesis 7: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor- rated level of managerial self-efficacy (MSE).

10 Hypotheses Hypothesis 8: Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) directed towards supervisors are positively related to the supervisor-rated level of organizational- based self-esteem (OBSE) (Lawler, 2001; Homans, 1950; Weiner, 1985, 1986).

11 How Supervisors Accrue Benefits in LMX Supervisor Social Support (EE) Subordinate Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (SR) Moderators: Span of Control (SR) LLX (SR) LMX (From the supervisor’s perspective) (SR) Key:SR = Supervisor RatedEE = Employee Rated Supervisor Benefits Job Satisfaction with Subordinate (SR) Managerial Self- Efficacy (SR) Organizational- Based Self- Esteem (SR) Model

12 Proposed Methods Sample The sample will consist of full-time working adults from multiple organizations and their immediate supervisors. Procedure: Sample Supervisor at Time 1, collect LMX, LLX, span of control and gain contact information Sample Subordinate at Time 2 for social support Sample Supervisor at Time 2 for Subordinate OCBs, MSE, OBSE, and satisfaction

13 Measures Leader Member Exchange and LLX (Bernerth et al., adopted)—supervisor rated Span of Control (Hill & Hoskisson, 1987)—supervisor rated Social Support (Abbey et al., 1985)—employee rated OCBs (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002)—supervisor rated OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989)—supervisor rated MSE (Robertson & Sadri, 1993)—supervisor rated Subordinate Satisfaction (Spector, 1985)—supervisor rated

14 Data Analysis Tests of Model Fit and Construct Distinctiveness Confirmatory factor analyses Standardized factor loadings above.50 Reliability coefficients above.70 (Cronbach, 1951; Raykov, 1997) AVEs above.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) Tests of Hypotheses Path Analysis Mediation analyses with bootstrapping Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007)

15 Thank you! Questions? Comments? Concerns?

16 Why Social Support? Blau, 1964—social support as a means of creating a cohesive, stable relationship Foa & Foa, 1976, 1980—on the importance of resource types Graen & Scandura, 1987—discretionary resources Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004—cost

17 Why LLX & Span of Control? Barnard, 1938—cooperation through dyads Blau, 1964—social structures Emerson, 1972a,b—exchange networks and nodes

18 Why OCBs? Similar resources Emerson & path dependence Successful exchange value

19 Why Satisfaction, OBSE, & MSE? Homans, 1961—propositions in that people look for whether their actions will lead to positive outcomes Lawler, 2001 & Homans, 1950—these positive outcomes could be affective or cognitive Predictors of other variables


Download ppt "Leader Benefits: Exploring how Leaders Benefit from LMX Jeffrey Muldoon Dissertation Proposal Defense Louisiana State University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google