Revisiting the “give and take” in LMX. Exploring equity sensitivity as a moderator of the influence of LMX on affiliative and change-oriented OCB
| Pages | 555-571 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0152 |
| Published date | 05 March 2018 |
| Date | 05 March 2018 |
| Author | Yu Han,Greg Sears,Haiyan Zhang |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
Revisiting the
“give and take”in LMX
Exploring equity sensitivity as a moderator
of the influence of LMX on affiliative
and change-oriented OCB
Yu Han and Greg Sears
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and
Haiyan Zhang
Smarter Workforce Institute, IBM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Drawing on principles of social exchange and equity theory, the purpose of this paper is to
examine the relationship between employee reports of leader-member exchange (LMX) and two types of
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): affiliative and change-oriented OCB. Further, equity sensitivity,
a dispositional variable reflecting one’s tendency to “give”or “take”in their interpersonal interactions, was
tested as a moderator of these effects.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected from a sample of 240 manufacturing employees in
China and their respective supervisors. Multilevel analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized effects.
Findings –LMX was found to be positively associated with affiliative, but not change-oriented OCB. Equity
sensitivity moderated these relationships, such that LMX was positively associated with both types of OCB
when employees are benevolent, but not when they are entitled.
Research limitations/implications –Given the different pattern of relationships that were observed
between LMX and affiliative vs change-oriented OCB, the results suggest that LMX may differentially
influence these two types of OCB. Future studies should continue to explore the role of dispositional traits in
moderating the effects of LMX, including less desirable (“negative”) traits.
Originality/value –Very few studies have examined the role of dispositional variables in moderating the
effects of LMX. Consistent with principles of the social exchange and equity theory, the results suggest that
LMX will only be associated with OCB when employees are benevolent (i.e. they are “givers”), and not when
they are entitled (i.e. they are “getters”).
Keywords Quantitative, Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), Leader-member exchange (LMX),
Taking charge, Benevolent, Entitled, Equity sensitivity
Paper type Research paper
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is a dyadic approach to leadership that describes
how supervisor-subordinate relationships evolve over time. Rooted in social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964), the LMX perspective emphasizes the development of reciprocal
interpersonal relationships between subordinates and their leader. As a result of a series of
dyadic transactions that occur over time, subordinates in high LMX relationships
experience a number of benefits, including favorable treatment from their supervisor
(i.e. more socioemotional and instrumental support, greater input into decision-making), and
greater career growth opportunities (Liden et al., 1997). Due to this favorable treatment and
the reciprocal nature of LMX, LMX theory posits that subordinates in high-quality LMX
relationships should display more positive work attitudes and behaviors (Erdogan and
Bauer, 2014). Consistent with this premise, LMX has been shown to be positively associated
with a broad spectrum of employee work attitudes (for a recent review, see Epitropaki
and Martin, 2016) and to different dimensions of employee performance, including both
task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; see Dulebohn et al., 2012;
Personnel Review
Vol. 47 No. 2, 2018
pp. 555-571
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0152
Received 16 May 2017
Revised 19 September 2017
Accepted 26 November 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
555
Revisiting the
“give and take”
in LMX
Ilies et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2016). The literature on OCB, however, has largely focused on
affiliative OCB, rather than other emerging forms, such as change-oriented OCB (e.g. Matta
and Van Dyne, 2016; Marinova et al., 2015), raising questions about whether LMX may
differentially influence these two OCB dimensions.
Change-oriented OCBs are discretionary behaviors directed at modifying current
circumstances at work by recommending changes to the status quo, taking the initiative
to make changes, or improving existing processes or relationships (Choi, 2007; Van Dyne
et al., 1995). In this respect, change-oriented OCB differs from affiliative OCB, which
emphasizes compliance with the “status quo”and contributing to the support and
maintenance of existing processes in an organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Moreover,
change-oriented OCB can be politically risky as actions that challenge existing work
methods, norms, and policies may, in many instances, not be received favorably by others
in the organization (Choi, 2007; Moon et al., 2008; Morrison, 2011). Thus, although these
behaviors may be intended to be constructive in nature and to benefit the organization,
employees may worry about negative repercussions from enacting these behaviors,
including potential damage to one’s reputation, negative effects on one’s relationships
with coworkers, and potential career-related costs (e.g. negative performance evaluations,
undesirable job assignments; Milliken et al., 2003; Vadera et al., 2013). These perceptions of
risk may then act to suppress the display of change-oriented OCB (Moon et al., 2008;
Morrison, 2011; Vadera et al., 2013) and potentially attenuate the relationship between
LMX and change-oriented OCB.
In their recent review of research exploring the role of LMX in employee performance,
Matta and Van Dyne (2016) observed that studies have almost exclusively theorized and
tested positive relationships between LMX and work outcomes. To bring balance to the
literature, they emphasize the need for research exploring whether LMX may, in some
cases, negatively influence performance. Likewise, differential relationships may exist
between LMX and various facets of performance owing to differences in personality
(Matta and Van Dyne, 2016; Schyns, 2016). In response to the need for research in this
area and further work investigating whether the explanatory mechanisms underlying
change-oriented and affiliative OCB may differ (Choi, 2007; LePine and Van Dyne, 2001;
Van Dyne et al., 1995), this study examined the influence of LMX on these two
facets of OCB, and whether a key personality trait –equity sensitivity –may moderate
these relationships.
Derived from equity theory, the equity sensitivity concept assesses individual
differences in how individuals perceive and react to situations involving equity or
inequity (Huseman et al., 1985; Huseman and Hatfield, 1987). Specifically, this construct
differentiates between individuals who are “benevolent”(those who are “givers”in social
exchange relationships) and those who are “entitled”(those who are “getters”in social
exchange relationships). Because fairness perceptions and perceptions associated with
reciprocating favorable treatment from others (e.g. a felt obligation to reciprocate) have been
theorized and found to be a central mechanism by which high-quality LMX relationships
cultivate work-related behaviors (e.g. Matta and Van Dyne, 2016; Martin et al., 2016;
Masterson and Lensges, 2016; Scandura, 1990), we expect that this dispositional variable
will play a pivotal role in moderating the effects of LMX on OCB. Specifically, we argue that
the relationship between LMX and affiliative and change-oriented OCBs will systematically
differ based on whether the employee is “benevolent”or “entitled”. Benevolent workers can
be expected to invest more time and effort into their exchange relationships and are much
less motivated by personal gain than entitled workers (Miles et al., 1994; Shore et al., 2006).
The positive relationship between LMX and both forms of OCB should therefore be stronger
for benevolent than for entitled employees. Indeed, as we discuss below, due the greater
personal risk involved in engaging in change-oriented OCB and the stronger motivation for
556
PR
47,2
To continue reading
Request your trial