The Psychologist-Manager Journal © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 19, No. 1, 41–59 1088-7156/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000037

The Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and the

Feedback Environment on Organizational
Citizenship and Withdrawal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Damian J. Lonsdale
University of South Dakota

Although leader–member exchange (LMX) and the feedback environment

both capture elements of the supervisor–subordinate social dynamic, their
combined effects have never been explored. In this study, significant inter-
actions were hypothesized and found for a sample of university employees in
the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), but were not
found in the prediction of organizational withdrawal. Interactive effects of
LMX and the feedback environment were also hypothesized to be stronger for
jobs of greater complexity than for jobs of lesser complexity, and this was
generally supported for OCBs, but not for organizational withdrawal. Lim-
itations and implications for future research are discussed.
Keywords: feedback environment, job complexity, leader–member exchange, organizational
citizenship behavior, organizational withdrawal

The social context between supervisors and their subordinates, often

operationalized as leader–member exchange (LMX) has been extensively
studied in organizational behavior (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Ilies,
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Research in this area consistently demon-
strates that the way subordinates feel about their supervisors professionally
impacts a range of subordinate attitudes and behaviors, most notably job
performance and turnover (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012).
Although LMX has a robust effect on subordinates’ desire to perform at high
levels and continue their employment, it also seems inadequate to fully
represent the complex motivational dynamic between supervisors and sub-
ordinates. For instance, Brower et al. (2000) argued that LMX is developed
and maintained through interpersonal communications that establish mutual

This article was published Online First March 24, 2016.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Damian J. Lonsdale,
Department of Management, Beacom School of Business, University of South Dakota., 414
East Clark Street, Vermillion, SD 57069. E-mail: damian.lonsdale@usd.edu

41
 42 LONSDALE

trust between supervisors and their subordinates. Thus, the nature and the
frequency of informal, day-to-day communications may represent another
critical component of the social experience that drives subordinate motiva-
tion. In the last few years, these communications have been conceptualized
as the “feedback environment” (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004).
It is reasonable to expect that an interpersonal dynamic between a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

supervisor and a subordinate marked by liking and mutual respect (positive

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

LMX) along with frequent praise, insightful direction, and constructive

criticism when warranted (constructive feedback environment) would create
a uniquely motivating context for the subordinate. Such a context may lead
to performance outcomes and a desire to continue employment that surpass
the effects of quality LMX or a favorable feedback environment in the
absence of the other. In addition, this type of work dynamic may play an even
greater role for employees in highly complex jobs due to the performance
demands of these types of jobs. To date, these relationships have not been
empirically tested. This study sought to explore the potentially augmenting
effects of a favorable feedback environment on high-quality LMX in the
prediction of important organizational variables.

LMX

In their seminal review of LMX, Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser

(1999) described a disjointed theoretical history for the construct. The au-
thors noted that, although many definitions had been proposed, the emergent
consensus was of LMX as the quality of the working relationship between a
supervisor and his or her subordinate. Hallmarks of this relationship include
interpersonal attraction, perceptions of loyalty, willingness to put forth extra
effort for the other, and professional respect (Ansari, Hung, & Aafaqi, 2007;
Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Employee perceptions of LMX have shown to be
predictive of satisfaction with their supervisor, affective commitment (Liden
& Maslyn, 1998), job satisfaction, perceptions of procedural justice (Erdogan
& Bauer, 2010), turnover (Nishii & Mayer, 2009), self-efficacy, job perfor-
mance (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011), and organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Ilies et al., 2007).
Clearly, the perceived quality of the working relationship with one’s
supervisor has a robust effect on subordinate attitudes and work-related
outcomes. Supervisors would do well to promote their likability and
demonstrate their loyalty to their subordinates, for example. From a
broader perspective, it is reasonable to assume that other elements in the
supervisor/subordinate dynamic may play important roles in subordinate
attitudes and behaviors. In particular, the feedback environment may be
one such element (Steelman et al., 2004).
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 43

The Feedback Environment

In performance management, a feedback intervention consists of

“providing people with some information regarding their task perfor-
mance” (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998, p. 67). Although there are several
potential sources for this information (e.g., coworkers), this study focuses
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

on feedback given to subordinates by their supervisors. The desired effect

of a feedback intervention is to motivate improved performance, which
may be more likely to occur when the feedback relates to previously
established goals (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998).
Feedback interventions occur formally within the performance appraisal
system, as well as informally within the routine, unstructured interactions
between supervisors and subordinates. The contextual nature of these infor-
mal feedback sessions is referred to as the feedback environment (Steelman
et al., 2004). From the subordinate perspective, distinguishing characteristics
of the feedback environment include the credibility and quality of the
feedback, considerate and respectful delivery of the feedback, supervisory
willingness to provide both positive and negative feedback when warranted,
frequency of feedback opportunities, and the encouragement of feedback
seeking (Steelman et al., 2004). Interestingly, Steelman et al. (2004) found
that employees tend to respond positively to negative (corrective) feedback
when it is seen as valid.
Generally speaking, the above characteristics describe the various as-
pects of the feedback subordinates regularly receive from their supervisors.
In contrast with the broadly relational nature of LMX, the feedback environ-
ment focuses on elements of the performance-related communications that
supervisors provide to their subordinates. Thus, the feedback environment
could be described as favorable (e.g., characterized by frequently clear or
timely feedback), or unfavorable (e.g., where feedback is often seen as
irrelevant or too infrequent).
Feedback environment favorability has been linked to perceptions of
organizational fit (Peng & Chiu, 2010), organizational politics (Rosen,
Levy, & Hall, 2006) and control over decisions (Sparr & Sonnentag,
2008); as well as job satisfaction (Anseel & Lievens, 2007), affective
commitment, organizational citizenship (Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004),
role clarity (Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, 2007), learning goal orientation,
and overall receptivity to feedback (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010). Al-
though the stream of research on the feedback environment is not as
developed as that of LMX, there is evident potential for the newer
construct to further elucidate the dynamics of supervisor/subordinate
processes and enhance our understanding of how these processes impact
upon important organizational outcomes.
 44 LONSDALE

The Relation Between LMX, the Feedback Environment,

and Outcome Variables

As two important aspects of the interpersonal dynamic between supervisors

and subordinates, LMX and the feedback environment are likely to share the
same directionality for most employees. For example, a friendly, supportive
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

working relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinate would be

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

apt to translate into a more positive feedback environment, and vice versa.
Indeed, previous research has found a positive correlation between LMX and the
feedback environment (Steelman et al., 2004). However, it is also conceivable
that the directionalities for LMX and the feedback environment could potentially
differ. For example, a subordinate may genuinely like and respect his supervisor,
but the supervisor’s busy schedule and agreeable personality create an inability
to give feedback in general, and an unwillingness to give negative feedback in
particular. Or, a supervisor may be readily available and willing to provide a full
range of high-quality, respectful feedback, but her subordinate is resentful over
the supervisor’s handling of customer-service issues. Though such instances may
be exceptions, they are no less descriptive of the supervisor-subordinate dy-
namic, and the distinctiveness between LMX and the feedback environment
becomes clear. Thus, LMX and the feedback environment are likely related, yet
separate constructs.
In addition, the presence of an exceedingly positive supervisor/
subordinate relationship along with a highly favorable feedback environment
could interact to create a uniquely motivating context for the subordinate.
Such a context would be expected to generate high-level performance and a
strong desire to continue employment on the part of the subordinate. The
assessment of both LMX and feedback environment favorability is therefore
necessary to fully capture the interpersonal dynamic of supervisor/
subordinate dyads. Hence, this study examined the interactive effects of
LMX and feedback environment favorability on the organizational outcome
variables of citizenship behaviors and withdrawal.

OCBs

OCBs may be conceptualized as beneficial, yet discretionary, work behav-

iors that tend to be more dependent upon worker attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice) than is core task perfor-
mance (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007). Both LMX and feedback
environment favorability have shown to be conducive to subordinates’ decisions
to engage in these valuable behaviors. In particular, a meta-analysis revealed that
LMX seems to be more closely related to OCBs directed toward individuals than
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 45

OCBs directed toward the organization (␳ ⫽ .38 vs. ␳ ⫽ 31; Ilies et al., 2007).
Feedback environment favorability has also been found to relate more closely to
OCBs directed toward individuals than OCBs directed toward the organization
(Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004), which is not surprising in view of the dyadic
nature of both LMX and the feedback environment.
Although the relationship between LMX and OCBs is well-established,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the role of the feedback environment in promoting OCBs is less so. Also, no
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

other study to date has sought to examine the combined effects of LMX and
the feedback environment on OCBs. It is expected that the feedback envi-
ronment will augment the effects of LMX on OCBs.

Withdrawal

Whereas organizational withdrawal is predicated upon a wide range of

factors (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Ng & Feldman,
2009), the nature of subordinates’ interactions with their supervisors seems
likely to play a meaningful role. Indeed, past research has shown that both
LMX (Joo, 2010; Venkataramani, Green, & Schleicher, 2010) and the
feedback environment (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008) negatively predict subor-
dinates’ turnover intentions and other withdrawal cognitions. Up until now,
however, no other study has explored the potential interactive effects of LMX
and the feedback environment on withdrawal intentions. As previously
stated, it is conceivable that the combined effects of a quality exchange
relationship and a favorable feedback environment could create a stronger
desire to maintain employment than either of these conditions would in the
absence of the other. Conversely, a poor exchange relationship coupled with
an unfavorable feedback environment could have a significantly detrimental
effect on that desire. Thus, it is expected that feedback environment will
augment the effects of LMX on organizational withdrawal.

Hypothesis 1: LMX and feedback environment will interact to predict

greater OCBs and less organizational withdrawal.

Job Complexity

Research in organizational behavior has demonstrated that job charac-

teristics such as complexity can impact the relationship between psycholog-
ical constructs and work outcomes. For example, Hunter, Schmidt, and Le
(2006) found that the validity of general mental ability in employee selection
increased as a function of job complexity. Also, Farh, Seo, and Tesluk (2012)
 46 LONSDALE

found that job complexity moderated the effects of emotional perception on

individuals’ teamwork effectiveness.
Similarly, the importance of a quality working relationship and a favor-
able feedback environment with one’s supervisor could depend upon the
complexity of one’s job. Whereas a good working relationship and a sup-
portive feedback environment could be considered a bit of a luxury for an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

unskilled labor position, these factors may be essential to successfully nav-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

igate the ambiguities and intricacies inherent to a professional position, for

example. Without such constructive supervisory dynamics, greater role am-
biguity (Whitaker et al., 2007), stress (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008), and lower
job satisfaction (Anseel & Lievens, 2007; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010) may be
even more pronounced for complex jobs than for simpler jobs. Thus, the
interactive effects of LMX and the feedback environment would be expected
to exert a stronger influence on the desire to maintain employment for more
complex jobs than for less complex jobs.
In addition, job complexity could moderate the relationship between a
positive social context with one’s supervisor and the performance of OCBs.
Discretionary behaviors that benefit the workplace require both the desire and
the opportunity to perform them. The supervisor’s role in workers’ desire to
perform OCBs is likely greater for more complex jobs due to the heightened
importance of supervisory feedback for the performance of those jobs (Ou,
Huang, & Horng, 1995). And opportunities to engage in OCBs may be more
plentiful for more complex jobs, at least in part, because more complex jobs
have been shown to offer greater autonomy (Grotto & Lyness, 2010). As
OCBs have been linked to job autonomy (Chen & Chiu, 2009; Ozer, 2011),
it is also expected that the interactive effects of LMX and the feedback
environment would exert a stronger influence on OCBs for more complex
jobs than for less complex jobs.

Hypothesis 2: The interactive effects of LMX and feedback environment

on organizational withdrawal and OCBs will be stronger to the degree
that the occupational position entails greater complexity.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Email invitations to participate in the current study were sent to approx-

imately 1,310 employees at a small, Midwestern university. Six hundred
sixty participants (a response rate of about 50%) voluntarily completed an
online survey that was part of an institutional effort to assess employee
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 47

attitudes. The applied focus of the survey necessitated certain methodological

restrictions such as a single instance of data collection and all self-report
responses. Demographic information was categorical to ensure confidential-
ity, and the most endorsed responses were 32.3% between the ages of 51– 65,
36.4% on the job 9 or more years, 63.2% female, and 94.2% White.
Employment records showed a workforce that was 57.0% female and 89.3%
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

White. Thus, nonrespondents were disproportionally represented to a small

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

degree by males and minorities.

Measures and Job Categories

Participants were asked to respond to items regarding LMX and the

feedback environment with their immediate supervisor, their own OCBs, and
their thoughts and intentions concerning withdrawal from the university. In
addition, they were asked to indicate their job category.
LMX. LMX was assessed with Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 12-item
Multidimensional Measure of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX-MDM).
Sample items included “I like my supervisor very much as a person” and “My
supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest
mistake.” Likert response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability for the global LMX-MDM in
prior research has been acceptable (␣ ⫽ .95; Erdogan & Enders, 2007).
Feedback environment. The 32-item Feedback Environment Scale
(FES; Steelman et al., 2004) was used to assess the feedback environment
with one’s supervisor. Sample items included “My supervisor gives me
useful feedback about my job performance” and “My supervisor is supportive
when giving me feedback about my performance.” Likert response options
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Internal consistency
reliability for the global FES in prior research has been acceptable (␣ ⫽ .95;
Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004).
Organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship behav-
iors directed both toward individuals and the organization were assessed with
Lee and Allen’s (2002) OCBI and OCBO scales, respectively. A sample
OCBI item is “Assist others with their duties” and a sample OCBO item is
“Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.” Each scale
consisted of eight items and used Likert response options from 1 (never) to
7 (always). Internal consistency reliabilities for the OCBI and OCBO scales
in prior research have been acceptable (␣ ⫽ .87 and ␣ ⫽ .88, respectively;
Ozer, 2011).
Withdrawal. Following the approach used by Hom and Griffeth (1991),
two items were used to measure quit intentions and two more were used to
 48 LONSDALE

measure withdrawal cognitions. The items assessing quit intentions (“I intend
to look for another job outside this organization within the next 12 months”
and “I intend to resign from this organization within the next 12 months”)
used Likert response options from 1 (definitely not) to 5 (definitely yes). The
first item assessing withdrawal cognitions (“How often do you think of
quitting this organization?”) used Likert response options from 1 (never) to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

7 (always). The second item assessing withdrawal cognitions (“I am thinking

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

about quitting my job”) used Likert response options from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Quit intentions and withdrawal cognitions were aggregated into a single,
4-item “Withdrawal” measure. Separately, internal consistency reliabilities
for the two quit intention items and the two withdrawal cognitions items in
prior research have been acceptable (␣ ⫽ .96 and ␣ ⫽ .86, respectively; Hom
& Griffeth, 1991).
Job category and complexity ranking. Participants were asked to indi-
cate their job category by selecting one of six options that were consistent
with the university’s existing job categorizations. Thirty-nine indicated “ac-
ademic administration,” which included chairs, deans, and directors. One
hundred ninety-nine chose “faculty,” where the primary roles are teaching
and research. Sixteen indicated “supervisor with performance appraisal re-
sponsibilities.” One hundred fifty-nine chose “nonfaculty exempt,” which
included positions such as project coordinators, assistant directors, research
associates in laboratories, admission counselors, and other student support
positions. Two hundred thirty-four indicated “career service act,” which
included positions such as administrative assistants, custodians, computer
technicians, maintenance workers, and clerical personnel. The “graduate
assistant” category was chosen by only two participants and was therefore
dropped from further analyses. Eleven participants did not indicate their job
category. This left a sample size of 647 for analyses examining differential
effects according to job category.
University human resource personnel serving as subject matter experts
collaborated with the author on the task of ranking the job categories
according to complexity. Consistent with the information processing ap-
proach to determining job complexity (Hunter & Hunter, 1984), job com-
plexity was operationally defined as the degree to which a job entailed a wide
variety of ill-defined tasks including abstract data analyses and decision-
making that require high levels of general mental ability. Although the
process was inexact due to the variety of positions within each category and
the subjectivity involved, the job categories were ranked in the following
order of descending complexity: (a) academic administration, (b) faculty, (c)
supervisor with performance appraisal responsibilities, (d) nonfaculty ex-
empt, and (e) career service act. Overall, these rankings were achieved with
a high level of agreement, although the differences in complexity between the
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 49

third and fourth ranked categories were deemed to be smaller and less
tangible than the differences between the other categories.

Results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Correlations and reliabilities for the observed variables are reported in

Table 1. The participant university requested that means and standard devi-
ations be redacted. Internal consistency reliabilities for all measures were
acceptable. Of note was the similar pattern of correlations for LMX and FES
with the outcome variables. Also, both LMX and FES showed significant
correlations with the outcome variables OCBI, OCBO, and withdrawal.
Contrary to prior research, however, both LMX and FES appeared to relate
a bit more strongly to OCBO than to OCBI.
To test the hypotheses, LMX and FES scores were first centered (Aiken
& West, 1991) to allow for clearer interpretation of the lower order regres-
sion coefficients in moderated multiple regression (Aiken, West, Luhmann,
Baraldi, & Coxe, 2012). All further analyses, tables, and graphs reflect the
centered data.
Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were conducted where each
dependent variable was subsequently regressed upon both LMX and FES in
Step 1. Step 2 added the product of LMX and FES to test for the interaction.
A review of both Tables 2 and 3 reveals a significant change in R2 (ps ⬍ .01)
for Step 2 that indicates an interactive effect on OCBI and OCBO, respec-
tively. However, although Table 4 shows a significant change in R2 (p ⬍
.001) for withdrawal in Step 1 due primarily to FES, a nonsignificant change
in R2 for Step 2 indicates a lack of an interactive effect on withdrawal. As the
interaction of LMX and FES were significant for OCBI and OCBO, Hypoth-
esis 1 was mostly supported.

Table 1
Correlations and Reliabilities for the Observed Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Gender —
2. LMX .06 (.94)
3. FES .02 .84*** (.97)
4. OCBI .11** .23*** .24*** (.86)
5. OCBO ⫺.02 .32*** .33*** .51*** (.90)
6. Withdrawal ⫺.02 ⫺.38*** ⫺.41*** ⫺.12** ⫺.34*** (.90)
Note. N ⫽ 660. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas) are on the diagonal; for Gender, 1 ⫽
male and 2 ⫽ female; LMX ⫽ leader–member exchange; FES ⫽ Feedback Environment Scale;
OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals; OCBO ⫽ organizational
citizenship behavior directed at the organization.
**
p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
 50 LONSDALE

Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting OCBI
Step B ␤ t ⌬R2
Step 1 .06***
LMX .02 .09 1.29
FES .02 .17 2.34*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Step 2 .04***
LMX .04 .25 3.27**
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

FES .02 .18 2.63**

LMXFES .00 .26 5.08***
Note. N ⫽ 660. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals; LMX ⫽
leader–member exchange; FES ⫽ Feedback Environment Scale; LMXFES ⫽ LMX multiplied
by FES.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

Graphs of the interactive effects of LMX and FES on OCBI and OCBO
are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Both graphs show that for those
reporting low LMX, the feedback environment had little bearing on the level
of organizational citizenship performed. In contrast, among those reporting
high LMX, individuals in more favorable feedback environments were more
willing to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors than were individ-
uals in less favorable feedback environments.
Next, a similar series of moderated hierarchical regression analyses were
performed for the individual job categories (academic administration, faculty,
supervisor with performance appraisal responsibilities, nonfaculty exempt,
and career service act). Results for the dependent variables OCBI, OCBO,
and withdrawal are shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7, respectively. The interaction
term for LMX and FES explained incremental variance in the prediction of
OCBI for both academic administrators and faculty (ps ⬍ .05), but not for the
other job categories. In addition, the amount of variance explained by the
interaction term for academic administrators was greater than that explained

Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting OCBO
Step B ␤ t ⌬R2
Step 1 .12***
LMX .03 .15 2.18*
FES .03 .21 3.04**
Step 2 .01**
LMX .05 .23 3.13**
FES .03 .22 3.19**
LMXFES .00 .14 2.76**
Note. N ⫽ 660. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization;
LMX ⫽ leader–member exchange; FES ⫽ Feedback Environment Scale; LMXFES ⫽ LMX
multiplied by FES.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 51

Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Withdrawal
Step B ␤ t ⌬R2
Step 1 .17***
LMX ⫺.06 ⫺.12 ⫺1.79
FES ⫺.10 ⫺.31 ⫺4.60***
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Step 2 .00
LMX ⫺.04 ⫺.08 ⫺1.08
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

FES ⫺.10 ⫺.30 ⫺4.53***

LMXFES .00 .07 1.37
Note. N ⫽ 660. LMX ⫽ leader–member exchange; FES ⫽ Feedback Environment Scale;
LMXFES ⫽ LMX multiplied by FES.
***
p ⬍ .001.

for faculty. As academic administration and faculty were ranked as the first
and second most complex occupational groups, respectively, this was sup-
portive of Hypothesis 2.
A graph of the interactive effects of LMX and FES on OCBI for
academic administrators (see Figure 3) shows that for those reporting low
LMX, the nature of their feedback environment had little impact. However,
for those reporting high LMX, academic administrators in more favorable
feedback environments tended to perform more organizational citizenship
behaviors directed at individuals than did those in less favorable feedback
environments.
In predicting OCBO, the interaction term for LMX and FES explained
incremental variance for only academic administrators (see Table 6). As
academic administration was ranked as the most complex job category, this
was generally supportive of Hypothesis 2. A graph of the interactive effects
of LMX and FES on OCBO for academic administrators depicted in Figure
4 shows a pattern similar to that in Figure 3. Whereas the feedback environ-

4.5

3.5
OCBI

Low FES
3
High FES
2.5

1.5

1
Low LMX High LMX

Figure 1. Interaction of leader–member exchange (LMX) and the Feedback Environment Scale
(FES) on organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals (OCBI). N ⫽ 660.
 52 LONSDALE

4.5

3.5
OCBO

Low FES
3
High FES
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2.5
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1.5

1
Low LMX High LMX

Figure 2. Interaction of leader–member exchange (LMX) and the Feedback Environment Scale
(FES) on organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization (OCBO). N ⫽ 660.

ment mattered little for academic administrators reporting low LMX, it made
a substantial difference in OCBO for those reporting high LMX. In addition,
the interactive effects of LMX and FES for academic administrators appear
to be stronger for OCBO than OCBI, which is consistent with the larger
change in R2 for the interaction term in predicting OCBO than OCBI (.26 vs.
.15, respectively; ps ⬍ .05).
Similar to the results from the broader sample, however, the interaction
of LMX and FES failed to explain incremental variance in Withdrawal for
any of the job categories (see Table 7). The failure of the interaction term to
explain incremental variance in withdrawal for even the most complex
occupational group was not supportive of Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

As hypothesized, feedback environment favorability augmented the ef-

fects of LMX on both OCBI and OCBO. Specifically, the positive relation-
Table 5
Summary of Interaction Analyses for OCBI by Job Category
Job category B ␤ t ⌬R2
1. Academic admin .01 .52 2.67* .15*
2. Faculty .01 .49 4.73*** .10***
3. Supervisor .01 .30 .85 .06
4. NFE .00 .16 1.68 .02
5. CSA .00 .10 1.18 .01
Note. N ⫽ 647. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals; Aca-
demic admin ⫽ academic administration; Supervisor ⫽ supervisor with performance appraisal
responsibilities; NFE ⫽ nonfaculty exempt; CSA ⫽ career service act. Values and changes
in R2 are for the interaction term (leader–member exchange multiplied by Feedback
Environment Scale) in Step 2.
*
p ⬍ .05. *** p ⬍ .001.
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 53

Table 6
Summary of Interaction Analyses for OCBO by Job Category
Job category B ␤ t ⌬R2
***
1. Academic admin .02 .68 3.98 .26***
2. Faculty .00 .12 1.09 .01
3. Supervisor .00 .04 .12 .00
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

4. NFE .00 .14 1.40 .01

5. CSA .00 .08 1.08 .00
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. N ⫽ 647. OCBO ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization;

Academic admin ⫽ academic administration; Supervisor ⫽ supervisor with performance
appraisal responsibilities; NFE ⫽ nonfaculty exempt; CSA ⫽ career service act. Values
and changes in R2 are for the interaction term (leader–member exchange multiplied by
Feedback Environment Scale) in Step 2.
***
p ⬍ .001.

ships between LMX and the OCB variables were stronger for those enjoying
more favorable feedback environments than for those experiencing less
favorable feedback environments. Variance explained by the interaction
terms for both OCBI and OCBO was small, but low levels of explained
variance are still considered meaningful for interactions in field studies
(McClelland & Judd, 1993; Shieh, 2009).
Contrary to expectations, the feedback environment did not augment the
effects of LMX on withdrawal. The reasons for the lack of an interactive effect
on withdrawal are unclear, however. One explanation may be that either a poor
working relationship with one’s supervisor or an unfavorable feedback en-
vironment is sufficiently aversive to cause organizational withdrawal on its
own. Consequently, there would be little more impact the presence of both
undesirable conditions could have on such cognitions. It should be noted,
however, that feedback environment favorability was a strong, negative
predictor of withdrawal in multiple regression, but LMX failed to reach
significance in the same model. Consistent with other research (Sparr &
Sonnentag, 2008; Venkataramani et al., 2010), the present study did find
significant negative correlations with withdrawal for both LMX and

Table 7
Summary of Interaction Analyses for Withdrawal by Job Category
Job category B ␤ t ⌬R2
1. Academic admin ⫺.02 ⫺.30 ⫺1.64 .05
2. Faculty .01 .17 1.65 .01
3. Supervisor .03 .30 .87 .06
4. NFE ⫺.01 ⫺.10 ⫺1.06 .01
5. CSA .01 .09 1.17 .01
Note. N ⫽ 647. Academic Admin ⫽ academic administration; Supervisor ⫽ supervisor with
performance appraisal responsibilities; NFE ⫽ nonfaculty exempt; CSA ⫽ career service act.
Values and changes in R2 are for the interaction term (leader–member exchange multiplied by
Feedback Environment Scale) in Step 2.
 54 LONSDALE

4.5

3.5
OCBI

Low FES
3
High FES
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2.5
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1.5

1
Low LMX High LMX

Figure 3. For the subsample of academic administrators: interaction of leader–member ex-

change (LMX) and the Feedback Environment Scale (FES) on organizational citizenship
behavior directed at individuals (OCBI). n ⫽ 39.

feedback favorability, so it appears that the effects of LMX were sub-

sumed by the feedback environment in this instance. The reasons for this
are unclear and further research is needed to explore the relative roles of
LMX and the feedback environment on organizational withdrawal.
Graphic representations of the significant interactions showed a consis-
tent pattern. In particular, for those reporting lower quality LMX, feedback
environment favorability had little impact on the choice to engage in OCBI
or OCBO. However, for those reporting higher quality LMX, the feedback
environment augmented the effects of LMX such that individuals who
enjoyed favorable feedback environments were more likely to engage in
OCBI and OCBO. This supports the theory that workers attune to and are
impacted by both LXM and the feedback environment, and that their com-

4.5

3.5
OCBO

Low FES
3
High FES
2.5

1.5

1
Low LMX High LMX

Figure 4. For the subsample of academic administrators: interaction of leader–member ex-

change (LMX) and the Feedback Environment Scale (FES) on organizational citizenship
behavior directed at the organization (OCBO). n ⫽ 39.
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 55

bined effects influence decisions on whether or not to engage in discretionary

work behaviors. Indeed, a high quality working relationship coupled with a
favorable feedback environment appear to create a uniquely motivating work
context that goes above and beyond that created by either condition in the
absence of the other.
In addition, job complexity was hypothesized to moderate the interactive
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

effects of LMX and the feedback environment on OCBs and organizational

withdrawal. Results showed that job categories of greater complexity were
indeed more likely to show significant interactions between LMX and the
feedback environment on OCBs. For OCBs directed at individuals, a signif-
icant interaction was found for both academic administrators and faculty, and
for OCBs directed at the organization, a significant interaction was found
only for academic administrators. Recall that academic administrators and
faculty were ranked as the first and second most complex job categories,
respectively. Again, no such interactive effect was found for organizational
withdrawal for any of the job groupings, however.
Graphs of the interaction between LMX and the feedback environment
on the OCB variables for academic administrators showed similar, yet more
pronounced effects than the respective graphs did for the overall sample. In
particular, a comparison of the interactive effects on OCBO for academic
administrators versus the broader sample reveals a striking contrast. The
stronger effect for academic administrators may be due, in part, to them
having more opportunities to engage in the types of behaviors comprising the
OCBO measure (e.g., “taking action to protect the university from potential
problems”) than other university employees have. Thus, these behaviors are
likely more available when academic administrators are sufficiently moti-
vated to perform them.
These results support the theory that a quality working relationship with
one’s supervisor that is augmented by a favorable feedback environment has
a greater impact on job performance such as OCBs for jobs of higher
complexity versus lower complexity. It may be that this type of constructive
supervisory dynamic helps reduce the role ambiguity (Ou et al., 1995;
Whitaker et al., 2007) and stress (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008) that could
otherwise plague highly complex jobs. The recognition and appreciation of
one’s supervisor for alleviating these factors would then be likely to lead to
a reciprocal obligation that would increase the desire to perform OCBs
(Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004). In addition, jobs of higher complexity tend to
enjoy a level of autonomy that allows for the performance of a broader range
of OCBs (Ozer, 2011). Thus, top management team members would be well
advised to establish close, supportive working relationships with their high-
level subordinates and make a frequent practice of providing them quality,
timely feedback.
 56 LONSDALE

A limitation of the present study is the use of self-reported OCBs. The

assessment of OCBs from the perspective of the supervisor would have certainly
been preferable, but the context and broader purpose of the survey made this
unfeasible. Although research suggests that self-reported OCBs may be compa-
rable to supervisor-reported OCBs (Carpenter, Berry, & Houston, 2014), future
research is needed to determine if the interactive effects found in the present
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

study differ when such performance data is gathered from supervisors. Although
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the possibility of inaccurately reported OCBs exists, the results of the present
study are in line with the underlying theory, which suggests that there may be
validity to the self-reported OCBs. Significant interactions would have been
impossible without sufficient variance in the OCB measures.
Another limitation is the mono-method, cross-sectional nature of data
collection that was utilized. This is because arguments regarding cause and
effect are hindered in cross-sectional data collection in comparison to time
series data collection, for example. Thus, whether the independent and
dependent variables were correctly specified is limited to theoretical justifi-
cation without empirical evidence. Time series data collection with new
employees, in particular, would have the added benefit of illustrating the
evolving dynamics between the feedback environment and LMX. A limita-
tion of the aforementioned mono-method research design used in the present
study is that this approach may carry the risk of inflating relationships
between study variables, although this concern may be a bit inflated itself
(Lance & Vandenberg, 2015; Spector, 1987).
A final limitation is that job complexity was roughly assessed by ranking
broad categories of jobs that were not precise representations of jobs with
similar levels of complexity. There was likely overlap of complexity between
some categories, for example, and the actual rankings were admittedly
subjective. However, the two most complex categories (i.e., academic ad-
ministrators and faculty) where significant effects were found were also the
most homogenous of the categories. Here again, future research is needed to
determine if the moderating role of job complexity found here is supported
when this characteristic is assessed in a more rigorous manner.

Conclusions

Overall, the results support two general conclusions. For one, the social
context involving supervisors and subordinates extends well beyond LMX.
Whereas the quality of the working relationship with one’s supervisor is certainly
an important determinant of performance outcomes, other elements such as the
feedback environment must also be included to better capture the complex
interpersonal processes that comprise the supervisor/subordinate dynamic. As
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 57

operationalized by the FES (Steelman et al., 2004), the feedback environment

takes into account the quality and frequency of informal communications in-
tended to benefit workers’ motivation and job performance. These communica-
tions likely benefit from or are hindered by high or low quality LMX, respec-
tively. In a cyclical manner, supervisory feedback also has the ability to inspire
or erode the trust that is the foundation for quality LMX (Brower et al., 2000).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Thus, as the results of this study suggest, LMX and the feedback
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

environment are related, yet distinct constructs whose combined effects are
potentially greater than they are in isolation, especially for jobs of higher
complexity. Researchers would be remiss in examining either LMX or the
feedback environment in the absence of the other, as neither one adequately
represents the motivational context created though the informal social ex-
change between supervisors and subordinates.
The second conclusion is that job characteristics such as job complexity
should be more commonly examined as potential moderators in organiza-
tional behavior research. The demands of a job and the type of people who
occupy them differ from laborer positions all the way to the top management
team of an organization. Therefore, psychological theories regarding the
nature and importance of worker perceptions and attitudes should take these
differences into account. For example, although interactive effects for LMX
and the feedback environment on OCBs were found in the broader sample,
the thrust of this effect was clearly concentrated in the most complex job
categories. Therefore, future research that takes into account relevant job
characteristics will do much to fine-tune extant theories and expand our
knowledge of important relationships in organizational behavior.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Luhmann, M., Baraldi, A., & Coxe, S. J. (2012). Estimating and
graphing interactions. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf,
& K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 3. Data
analysis and research publication (pp. 101–129). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13621-005
Ansari, M. A., Hung, D., & Aafaqi, R. (2007). Leader–member exchange and attitudinal
outcomes: Role of procedural justice climate. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 28, 690 –709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730710835443
Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term impact of the feedback environment on job
satisfaction: A field study in a Belgian context. Applied Psychology, 56, 254 –266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00253.x
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F., & Tan, H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227–
250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0
 58 LONSDALE

Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of

self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 35, 547–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1909
Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship
between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 149, 474 – 494. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.4.474-494
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader–member exchanges: The buffering
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1104 –1120. http://dx.doi.org/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10.1037/a0020578
Erdogan, B., & 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, 92, 321–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.92.2.321
Farh, C. I., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness,
and job performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 890 –900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027377
Grotto, A. R., & Lyness, K. S. (2010). The costs of today’s jobs: Job characteristics and
organizational supports as antecedents of negative spillover. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 76, 395– 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.09.004
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion
domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
555–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.555
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350 –366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.350
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96
.1.72
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range
restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
594 – 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269 –277. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
Joo, B. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The role of perceived
organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover intention.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 69 – 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq
.20031
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a
double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 67–72. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989
Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2015). More statistical and methodological myths and
urban legends. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the Feedback
Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36, 1372–1405. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0149206310373145
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376 –390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.114.2.376
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, corre-
 EFFECTS OF LMX AND FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT 59

lates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Ng, T. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Re-examining the relationship between age and voluntary
turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 283–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb
.2009.01.004
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse
groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1412–1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

a0017190
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (2004). The mediating role of affective commitment in the
relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65, 351–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.08.003
Ou, S., Huang, L., & Horng, R. (1995). The effects of feedback and task complexity on job
performance and satisfaction. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 37, 87–99.
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1328 –
1336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023644
Peng, J. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2010). An integrative model linking feedback environment and
organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 582– 607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365455
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange
(LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029978
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context
of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 211–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.
The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)80009-5
Shieh, G. (2009). Detecting interaction effects in moderated multiple regression with contin-
uous variables: Power and sample size considerations. Organizational Research Methods,
12, 510 –528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428108320370
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Feedback environment and well-being at work: The
mediating role of personal control and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 388 – 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13594320802077146
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438 – 443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.438
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct
definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64, 165–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258440
Venkataramani, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The
impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX and members’ work attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 1071–1084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020214
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How leader–member exchange
influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal– external efficacy
perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64, 739 –770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570
.2011.01224.x
Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. (2007). The development of a feedback environment
and role clarity model of job performance. Journal of Management, 33, 570 –591.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306297581

Received September 23, 2015

Revision received January 11, 2016
Accepted February 17, 2016 䡲