1932

Abstract

Relationships are central to understanding what occurs in the workplace. The leader-member exchange (LMX) approach dominates the literature on relational dynamics of leadership. Research supports LMX as a mediator between leadership and outcomes, and this reflects the centrality of relationships at work. However, LMX is not a leadership theory. We critically review the literature on LMX, with discussion of the requirements for “good” theory and how LMX falls short. We acknowledge some attempts through the years to develop theory to guide LMX research. The concept of “exchange” was not original to LMX. Our review of social exchange theory reveals that, contrary to the common approach, LMX is not consonant with exchange theory. Other attempts at theory offer partial explanations that do not capture leader-member relational dynamics. Some promising approaches to studying leader-member relationships have emerged in recent years. We offer suggestions for future theory and research and advocate for a return to role theory and the development of emotional sociocognitive approaches.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091249
2022-01-21
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/9/1/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091249.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091249&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adler S, Boyce AS. 2016. In defense of practical theory. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9:3641–45
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R 2014. Causality and endogeneity: problems and solutions. Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations DV Day 93–117 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashkanasy NM. 1989. Causal attribution and supervisors' response to subordinate performance: the Green and Mitchell model revisited. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19:4309–30
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Banks GC, McCauley KD, Gardner WL, Guler CE. 2016. A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: a test for redundancy. Leadersh. Q. 27:4634–52
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer TN, Green SG. 1996. Development of a leader-member exchange: a longitudinal test. Acad. Manag. J. 39:61538–67
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beal DJ. 2015. ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:383–407
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bedeian AG. 2016. A note on the aphorism “there is nothing as practical as a good theory. ”. J. Manag. Hist. 22:2236–42
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernerth JB, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, Giles WF, Walker HJ 2007. Leader–member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale. J. Organ. Behav. 28:8979–1003
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blau P. 1964. Power and Exchange in Social Life New York: Wiley
  10. Bowlby J. 1969. Attachment and Loss 1 London: Random House
  11. Brower HH, Schoorman FD, Tan HH. 2000. A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader–member exchange. Leadersh. Q. 11:2227–50
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Buengeler C, Piccolo RF, Locklear LR. 2021. LMX differentiation and group outcomes: a framework and review drawing on group diversity insights. J. Manag. 47:1260–87
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cervone D. 2004. The architecture of personality. Psychol. Rev. 111:1183–204
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chan D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:234–46
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen X-P, He W, Weng L-C. 2018. What is wrong with treating followers differently? The basis of leader–member exchange differentiation matters. J. Manag. 44:3946–71
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark MS, Mills J. 1979. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37:112–24
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Colquitt JA, Baer MD, Long DM, Halvorsen-Ganepola MD. 2014. Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: a comparison of relative content validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:4599–618
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cropanzano R, Dasborough MT, Weiss HM. 2017. Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42:2233–58
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31:6874–900
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dansereau F Jr., Graen G, Haga WJ. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 13:146–78
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM, Tee EYJ, Tse HHM. 2009. What goes around, comes around: how meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. Leadersh. Q. 20:4571–85
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Day D 2012. Leadership. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology SWJ Kozlowski 696–729 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dienesch RM, Liden RC. 1986. Leader–member exchange model of leadership: a critique and further development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11:3618–34
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dinh JE, Lord RG, Gardner WL, Meuser JD, Liden RC, Hu J. 2014. Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadersh. Q. 25:136–62
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. 2012. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag. 38:61715–59
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Eisenberger R, Rockstuhl T, Shoss MK, Wen X, Dulebohn J 2019. Is the employee-organization relationship dying or thriving? A temporal meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:81036–57
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Epitropaki O, Martin R. 2005. From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:4659–76
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Erdogan B, Bauer TN. 2010. Differentiated leader–member exchanges: the buffering role of justice climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:61104–20
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fairhurst G, Uhl-Bien M. 2012. Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): examining leadership as a relational process. Leadersh. Q. 23:61043–62
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Rel. 7:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fiedler FE, Chemers MM. 1974. Leadership and Effective Management Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman
  32. Foa EB, Foa UG 1980. Resource theory. Social Exchange KJ Gergen, MS Greenberg, RH Willis 77–94 Boston: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gardner WL, Lowe KB, Meuser JD, Noghani F, Gullifor DP, Cogliser CC. 2020. The leadership trilogy: a review of the third decade of The Leadership Quarterly. Leadersh. Q. 31:1101379
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gersick CJ, Bartunek JM, Dutton. JE 2000. Learning from academia: the importance of relationships in professional life. Acad. Manag. J. 43:61026–44
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gerstner CR, Day DV. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:6827–44
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gooty J, Yammarino FJ. 2011. Dyads in organizational research: conceptual issues and multilevel analyses. Organ. Res. Meth. 14:3456–83
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gottfredson RK, Aguinis H. 2017. Leadership behaviors and follower performance: deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. J. Organ. Behav. 38:558–91
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gottfredson RK, Wright SL, Heaphy ED 2020. A critique of the leader-member exchange construct: back to square one. Leadersh. Q. 31:6101385
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Soc. Rev. 25:161–78
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Graen GB, Cashman J 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers JG Hunt, LL Larson 143–66 Kent, OH: Kent State Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Graen G, Dansereau F Jr., Minami T. 1972. Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 7:2216–36
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Graen G, Novak MA, Sommerkamp P. 1982. The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 30:1109–31
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Graen GB, Scandura TA. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:175–208
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 6:2219–47
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Green SG, Mitchell TR. 1979. Attributional processes of leaders in leader—member interactions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 23:3429–58
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gullifor DP, Tribble LL, Cogliser CC 2017. Some of my best friends at work are millennials. Leading Diversity in the 21st Century TA Scandura, E Mourino-Ruiz 221–42 Charlotte, NC: Inf. Age Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hansbrough TK, Lord RG, Schyns B. 2015. Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. Leadersh. Q. 26:2220–37
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hansen JIC. 1998. Cognitions of a dustbowl empiricist. Counsel. Psychol. 26:3499–513
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Harris KJ, Wheeler AR, Kacmar KM. 2011. The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships. Leadersh. Q. 22:2271–81
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Harrison DA, Klein KJ. 2007. What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:1199–228
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hegtvedt KA, Killian C. 1999. Fairness and emotions: reactions to the process and outcomes of negotiations. Soc. Forces 78:269–302
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Herbert F. 1965. Dune Mechanicsburg, PA: Qual. Paperb. Book Club
  53. Hill AD, Johnson SG, Greco LM, O'Boyle EH, Walter SL. 2021. Endogeneity: a review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. J. Manag. 47:1105–43
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoch JE, Bommer WH, Dulebohn JH, Wu D. 2018. Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. J. Manag. 44:2501–29
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hofmans J, Dóci E, Solinger ON, Choi W, Judge TA. 2019. Capturing the dynamics of leader–follower interactions: stalemates and future theoretical progress. J. Organ. Behav. 40:3382–85
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hollander E. 1958. Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychol. Rev. 65:2117–27
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Homans GC. 1958. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Soc. 63:597–606
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Homans GC. 1961. Social Behavior New York: Harcourt Brace
  59. Homans GC. 1974. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms Oxford, UK: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
  60. Hyacinth B. 2017. Employees don't leave companies, they leave managers. LinkedIn Dec. 27. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employees-dont-leave-companies-managers-brigette-hyacinth/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Ilies R, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1269–77
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Jacobs TO. 1970. Leadership and Exchange in Formal Organizations Alexandria, VA: Human Resour. Res. Organ.
  63. Joseph DL, Newman DA, Sin HP. 2011. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) measurement: evidence for consensus, construct breadth, and discriminant validity. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 6: Building Methodological Bridges DD Bergh, DJ Ketchen 89–135 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kim J, Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Eckardt R, Cheong M et al. 2020. State-of-the-science review of leader-follower dyads research. Leadersh. Q. 31:1101306
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions KJ Klein, SWJ Kozlowski 3–90 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Krasikova DV, LeBreton JM. 2012. Just the two of us: misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:4739–57
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lambert LS, Tepper BJ, Carr JC, Holt DT, Barelka AJ. 2012. Forgotten but not gone: an examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:5913–30
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lazarus RS, Smith CA 1988. Knowledge and appraisal in the cognition-emotion relationship. Cog. Emot. 2:281–300
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lee A, Carpenter NC 2018. Seeing eye to eye: a meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership. Leadersh. Q. 29:2253–75
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Legood A, van der Werf L, Lee A, Den Hartog D 2021. A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership-performance relationship. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 30:11–22
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Leventhal GS 1980. What should be done with equity theory?. Social Exchange KJ Gergen, MS Greenberg, RH Willis 27–55 Boston: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Liao C, Wayne SJ, Liden RC, Meuser JD. 2017. Idiosyncratic deals and individual effectiveness: the moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation. Leadersh. Q. 28:3438–50
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Liao C, Wayne SJ, Rousseau DM 2016. Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary organizations: a qualitative and meta-analytical review. J. Organ. Behav. 37:S9–29
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Liao EY, Hui C. 2021. A resource-based perspective on leader-member exchange: an updated meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 38:317–70
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Liao Z, Liu W, Li X, Song Z 2019. Give and take: an episodic perspective on leader-member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:134–51
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Liden RC, Graen G. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Acad. Manag. J. 23:3451–65
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Liden RC, Maslyn JM. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manag. 24:143–72
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Stilwell D 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:4662–74
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Liden RC, Wu J, Cao AX, Wayne SJ 2015. Leader-member exchange measurement. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange T Bauer, B Erdogan 29–54 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Loignon AC, Gooty J, Rogelberg SG, Lucianetti L. 2019. Disagreement in leader–follower dyadic exchanges: shared relationship satisfaction and investment as antecedents. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 92:3618–44
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lord RG, Epitropaki O, Foti RJ, Hansbrough TK. 2020. Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7:49–74
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Lord RG, Gatti P, Chui SL. 2016. Social-cognitive, relational, and identity-based approaches to leadership. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 136:119–34
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Martin R, Thomas G, Guillaume Y, Lee A, Epitropaki O 2016. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: a meta-analytic review. Pers. Psychol. 69:67–121
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Matta F. 2020. To feel good, you have to give what you get: a study of leader follower resource exchanges Paper presented at the University of Exeter Exeter, UK:
  86. Matta FK, Scott BA, Koopman J, Conlon DE 2015. Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Acad. Manag. J. 58:61686–1708
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mayer RC, Gavin MB. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?. Acad. Manag. J. 48:5874–88
    [Google Scholar]
  88. McAllister DJ 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J 38:12459
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Meuser JD. 2016. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between servant leadership and leader member exchange PhD thesis, Univ. Ill. Chicago:
  90. Meuser JD, Gardner WL, Dinh JE, Hu J, Liden RC, Lord RG. 2016. A network analysis of leadership theory: the infancy of integration. J. Manag. 42:51374–1403
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Ilies R. 2009. The development of leader-member exchanges: exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 108:256–66
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nahrgang JD, Seo JJ 2015. How and why high leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships develop: examining the antecedents of LMX. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange T Bauer, B Erdogan 87–118 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Nietfeld E. 2021. After working at Google, I'll never let myself love a job again. New York Times April 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/opinion/google-job-harassment.html?smid=em-share
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Nye JL, Forsyth DR. 1991. The effects of prototype-based biases on leadership appraisals: a test of leadership categorization theory. Small Group Res 22:3360–79
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Park S, Sturman MC, Vanderpool C, Chan E 2015. Only time will tell: the changing relationships between LMX, job performance, and justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:3660–80
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pellegrini EK 2016. Relational leadership through the lens of international LMX research. The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange T Bauer, B Erdogan 351–79 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Phillips JS, Lord RG. 1981. Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 28:2143–63
    [Google Scholar]
  98. RGJ Mackintosh 2017. A healed femur. RGJ Mackintosh. https://rgjmackintosh.com/a-healed-femur/
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Rockstuhl T, Dulebohn T, Ang JH, Shore S, Lynn M. 2012. Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:61097–1130
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Scandura TA. 1999. Rethinking leader-member exchange: an organizational justice perspective. Leadersh. Q. 10:125–40
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Scandura TA, Graen GB. 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. J. Appl. Psychol. 69:3428–36
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schriesheim CA, Castro SL, Cogliser CC. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadersh. Q. 10:163–113
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Seo JJ, Nahrgang JD, Carter MZ, Hom PW. 2018. Not all differentiation is the same: examining the moderating effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) configurations. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:5478–95
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Shaffer JA, DeGeest D, Li A 2016. Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: a guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organ. Res. Meth. 19:180–110
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Sheer VC. 2015.. “ Exchange lost” in leader–member exchange theory and research: a critique and a reconceptualization. Leadership 11:2213–29
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sheridan JE, Abelson MA. 1983. Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 26:3418–36
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Shore LM, Tetrick LE, Lynch P, Barksdale K. 2006. Social and economic exchange: construct development and validation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36:4837–67
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Sin HP, Nahrgang J, Morgeson F 2009. Understanding why they don't see eye to eye: an examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:41048–57
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Sparrowe RT. 2020. LMX and welfare trade-off ratios: an evolutionary perspective on leader-member relations. Leadersh. Q. 31:2101271
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Sutton RI. 2007. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn't New York: Hachette Bus. Plus
  111. Sutton RI, Staw BM. 1995. What theory is not. Admin. Sci. Q. 40:3371–84
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Tajfel H. 1979. Individuals and groups in social psychology. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 18:2183–90
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Tajfel H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33:1–39
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Thibaut JW, Kelley HH 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups New York: Wiley
  115. Tinsley HE. 1997. Synergistic analysis of structured essays: large sample, discovery-oriented, qualitative research approach. Counsel. Psychol. 25:4573–85
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tsai CY, Dionne SD, Wang AC, Spain SM, Yammarino FJ, Cheng BS. 2017. Effects of relational schema congruence on leader-member exchange. Leadersh Q 28:2268–84
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Tse HM, Troth AC, Ashkanasy NM, Collins AL. 2018. Affect and leader-member exchange in the new millennium: a state-of-art review and guiding framework. Leadersh. Q. 29:1135–49
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Twenge JM. 2010. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 25:2201–10
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Tyler TR, Lind EA. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: MP Zanna 115–91 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Uhl-Bien M. 2006. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadersh. Q. 17:6654–76
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Uhl-Bien M, Riggio RE, Lowe KB, Carsten MK. 2014. Followership theory: a review and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 25:183–104
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Uhl-Bien M, Tierney PS, Graen GB, Wakabayashi M. 1990. Company paternalism and the hidden-investment process: identification of the “right type” for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group Organ. Stud. 15:4414–30
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Van de Ven AH. 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:4486–89
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Venkataramani V, Green SG, Schleicher DJ. 2010. Well-connected leaders: the impact of leaders' social network ties on LMX and members' work attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:61071–84
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wakabayashi M, Graen G. 1984. The Japanese career progress study: a 7-year follow-up. J. Appl. Psychol. 69:4603–14
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wakabayashi M, Graen G, Graen M, Graen M. 1988. Japanese management progress: mobility into middle management. J. Appl. Psychol. 73:2217–27
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Whetten DA. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:4490–95
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Whyte WF. 1943. Street Corner Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  129. Wright SL, Gottfredson RK, Heaphy ED. 2017. Measuring the quality of work relationships: a critical review of survey instruments. Acad. Manag. Proc 2017:114263 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.14263abstract (Abstr.)
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Yip J, Ehrhardt K, Black H, Walker DO. 2018. Attachment theory at work: a review and directions for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 39:2185–98
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Yuan Z, Morgeson FP, Wang X. 2021. I know how I feel but do I know how you feel? Investigating meta-perceptions to advance relationship-based leadership approaches. J. Appl. Psychol. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Zhang Z, Wang M, Shi J 2012. Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: the mediating role of leader-member exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 55:1111–30
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091249
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091249
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error