Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1985, Vol. 70, No. 4, 777-781 0021-9010/85/$00.75

Role of Leadership in the Employee Withdrawal Process:

A Constructive Replication
Gerald R. Ferris
Department of Management,
Texas A&M University

The contributions of average and dyadic leadership style to explaining variance

in employee turnover were examined in an investigation designed to constructively
replicate the study by Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982). The results showed leader-
member exchange (dyadic leadership style) to be a stronger predictor of turnover
than average leadership style, although the magnitude of these results was not as
strong as in the Graen et al. study. Also, dyadic leadership style predicted turnover
better than did employee attitudes, even though employee attitudes seemed to
mask the dyadic leadership style-turnover relation.

Efforts to more clearly articulate the determi-
nants of turnover continue to highlight the impor-
tance of employee attitudes (e.g., Mobley, Griffeth,
Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Mobley (1982) discussed
the important role of the immediate supervisor in
turnover management and called for research that
moves beyond the traditional focus on leader-
satisfaction ratings and begins to address the dyadic
relationship between leader and subordinate.
The investigation of the leadership-subordinate
turnover relation is not a recent phenomenon (e.g.,
Fleishman & Harris, 1962). However, the way that
leadership is measured and subsequently related
to outcomes has been the source of considerable
discussion. One approach suggests a between-
groups focus assuming the same behavior toward
all subordinates in a given group or unit, so that
an average leadership style score would be assigned
to each group member. Another approach contends
that the appropriate level of analysis is the dyadic
relationship between leader and subordinate,
adopting the assumption that leaders vary their
behavior across subordinates (e.g., Dansereau,
Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976). Although
research exists to support each position, few com-
petitive tests have been conducted on the same
data set to permit stronger conclusions to be
drawn concerning leader behavior.
Dansereau and Dumas (1977) suggested a vari-
ance-partitioning procedure that would permit the
examination of both within (dyadic) and between
(averaged) leadership style components. Katerberg
and Horn (1981) employed such an approach and
found that the within-unit component more
strongly predicted reactions than did the between-
unit component, although both components' pre-
dictive power were significant. They called for
more research that examined leader behavior com-
ponents on nonattitudinal dependent variables.
Additionally, Mobley (1982) recently cautioned
that much turnover research has confused and
crossed levels of analysis by using grouped or
aggregated data (e.g., job satisfaction mean scores)
to predict individual employee turnover. In order
to understand, in a more informed sense, which
individuals will leave or stay, individual-level data
needs to be used in the prediction.
In a study that addressed both of these concerns,
Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982) investigated the
role of leader behavior in the employee turnover
process with both within-unit (dyadic) and be-
tween-unit (averaged) leadership components. Their
results supported the superiority of dyadic lead-
ership style over averaged leadership style in pre-
dicting turnover of employees.
The present study was designed to constructively
replicate that investigation, examining the effec-
tiveness of different leadership components in the
prediction of employee turnover. Although there
are some differences in the measurement methods
used in this study compared to Graen et al., the
main difference is with respect to the sample
employed.

The author would like to thank Fred Dansereau, Method

George Graen, Frank Landy, and two anonymous review-
ers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Sample
note.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gerald R. Eighty-one registered nurses and their supervisors
Ferris, Department of Management, Texas A&M Univer- drawn from all major nursing services subunits of
sity, College Station, Texas 77843. a midwestern hospital comprised the sample for
777
778 SHORT NOTES
this study. All were female, the average age was
about 34 years, and the median tenure in the
organization was 2.6 years, with a range of 1
month to 32.25 years. A restriction that a unit
consist of at least three subordinates in order to
obtain acceptable estimates of average leadership
style (see Fleishman & Harris, 1962) was imposed
and reduced the sample to 68 nurses from 18 of
the 20 different units in the hospital.
Procedure
Questionnaires were administered by a re-
searcher to all nurses at the end of their work
shifts. Data were collected from nurses on the day
shift (7:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.) and evening shift (3:
30 p.m.-11:30 p.m.).
A 1-year follow-up found that 9 of the 68 staff
nurses had left the organization. All departures
were voluntary on the part of the employee.
Because performance data on nurses was not made
available, it was not possible to determine the
extent to which turnover was functional or dys-
functional. Furthermore, it should be noted that
the turnover rate in this study (about 13%) differs
substantially from the turnover rate in the Graen
et al. study (about 42%).
Measures
Leader-member exchange (LMX). The five-
item leader-member exchange scale used by Graen
et al. (1982) was employed to assess the quality of
supervisor-subordinate interaction. A 1 to 5 re-
sponse format was used instead of the 1 to 4 scale
used in the Graen et al. study. Thus, in summing
the five items for each subordinate, the possible
range of scores extended from 5 to 25. Several
other measures were collected using 5-point scales
(collected as part of a larger survey and thus not
relevant to the present study), and, thus, a 1 to 5
response format was used instead of the 1 to 4
scale employed by Graen et al. primarily out of
concern for maintaining symmetry across scales.
The first, third, and fifth scale points were anchored
with descriptions similar to those reported by
Graen et al. The remaining two scale points were
not anchored. The change in format, however,
reflected respectable internal consistency reliability
with a coefficient alpha of .83, which was not
dissimilar from the coefficient alpha of .80 reported
by Graen et al.
Average leadership style (ALS). Average lead-
ership style was assessed in the same manner as
in the Graen et al. (1982) study. The LMX ratings
of all subordinates reporting to a particular super-
visor were averaged, and that average was assigned
to each group member as their ALS score.
Employee attitudes. The Job Descriptive Index
(JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) was used to
measure employee attitudes toward select facets
or aspects of the job. Although the only JDI
component that has conceptual relevance to the
Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) theory is satisfaction
with supervision, four satisfaction components from
the JDI were examined consistent with the Graen
et al. (1982) investigation. Graen et al. used the
four JDI subscales of Work, Supervision, Pay, and
Promotion as revised for professional-level positions
(see Dansereau et al., 1975), whereas the present
study simply used the original, unmodified JDI
scales. Coefficient alphas for the four JDI scales
were as follows: Work = .59, Supervision = .79;
Pay = .79; Promotion = .85.
Subordinate reaction to the overall job situation
was assessed with a new JDI scale, Satisfaction
with the Job in General. This scale was developed
by Smith and her associates as somewhat of a
composite measure of affective reactions toward
the entire job situation. Furthermore, it was de-
signed to circumvent potential psychometric dif-
ficulties encountered when researchers sum the
five JDI scales to devise an overall measure of
satisfaction with the job (a description of this
scale's development and psychometric properties
is in progress). Coefficient alpha for this scale was
.89. Graen et al. (1982) used the Hoppock Job
Satisfaction Blank (Hoppock, 1935) as an overall
measure of satisfaction.
Analysis
Leader-member exchange variance was sepa-
rated into an average component and a deviation
from average component in order to examine the
relative contribution of between-unit (averaged)
variance and within-unit (individualized) variance
to explaining turnover. The deviation score was
calculated as LMX score minus the ALS (average
leadership) score. Thus, as indicated by Graen et
al. (1982), an inverse relation would indicate that
subordinates with LMX scores above the unit
average tended to leave less often than those with
scores below the unit average. Within and Between
Analysis (WABA) was conducted according to the
procedures discussed by Dansereau, Alutto, and
Yammarino (1984), in order to more specifically
investigate within- and between-unit variance rel-
ative to turnover. Also, employee attitudes were
correlated with turnover while holding constant
LMX, and the LMX-turnover relation was ex-
amined, partialing out employee attitudes.
Results
Table 1 shows the relations of LMX, ALS, and
the deviation of LMX from ALS with turnover.
 SHORT NOTES 779

Table 1
Correlations of Leadership Components With Turnover f'N = 68)
LMX scores ALS Deviation LMX

Component Score Var. Score Var. Score Van

Average Leadership Style (ALS)
Present study .68*** .46
Graenetal. (1982) .48* .23
Deviation LMX
Present study .73*** .53 .00 .00
Graenetal. (1982) .89*** .79 .02 .00
Turnover -.19 .04 -.11 .01 -.25* .06
-.44** .19 -.22 .05 -.38** .14
Note. N = 48 for results reported by Graen et al.; Var. = proportion of common variance values (coefficient of deter-
mination); LMX = leader-member exchange.
* p<, .05. **/><; .01.*** p&.OOl.

As can be seen, there was mixed support for the the extent to which a single set of scores is most
findings reported by Graen et al. (1982). Although influenced or best represented by within- or be-
the pattern of results relative to the directionality tween-unit scores. The between-unit eta ()? = .68)
of relation is consistent, the magnitude of the and within-unit eta (n = .73) for LMX suggest
obtained relation only partially supports the pre- that variability is reasonably high both within and
vious investigation. between units. In fact, Dansereau et al. suggest
The present results demonstrated that LMX calculation of an E ratio, which is simply the
and ALS explained 4% and 0% of the variance in between-unit eta correlation divided by the within-
turnover, respectively, compared to 19% and 5% unit eta. They claim that an E ratio is equal to
accounted for in the Graen et al. study. In both 1.00 when between- and within-unit variation
studies, the deviation leader-member exchange ex- contributes equally to the total deviations. The E
hibited significant relations with subordinate turn- ratio in the present case was .92. Adjusting this
over, both suggesting that subordinates with LMX ratio for degrees of freedom, an F test provides a
scores higher than the group average tended to more statistical perspective on the ratio of within-
leave less frequently than those with LMX scores and between-unit variance. Using N — J (i.e., total
below the group average. sample size minus the number of units or groups)
The predictive power of the LMX and ALS and J - \ degrees of freedom, a significant F ratio
measures with respect to turnover was further was obtained, F(50, 17) = 2.49, p < .05, suggesting
examined through the development of a hit-rate that even though both within- and between-unit
table, creating high and low groups in the same
manner as did Graen et al. (1982) by using a
median-split procedure. The hit-rate analysis is Table 2
presented in Table 2. Hit-Rate Analysis for Leader-Member Exchange
The results of the hit-rate analysis for LMX and and Average Leadership Style in the
ALS in the prediction of turnover do not strongly Prediction of Turnover
support LMX. Although the hit rate for LMX
approaches statistical significance, x20)> N = 68 Prediction
2.87, p < . 10, the results do not appear substantially
different from those for ALS. Leave Stay
WABA was conducted according to the rationale Leadership Hit
and procedures discussed by Dansereau et al. component Hit Miss Hit Miss rate" x20)
(1984) to elaborate on the analyses reported by
Leader-member
Graen et al. (1982). Specifically, one issue that exchange 7 28 31 2 56% 2.87*
emerges is whether there is sufficient within- and Average-leader-
between-unit variance on leadership to permit an ship style 6 28 31 3 54% 1.15
adequate test of the two models. The within- and
1
between-unit eta correlations, in \\ABA, indicate Base rate = 87%. * p < .10.
780 SHORT NOTES

Table 3
Zero-Order and First-Order Partial Correlations With Turnover
Zero-order First-order partial
correlation correlation

Present Oraen et al. Present Graen et al.

Predictor study (1982) Controlling study (1982)

LMX -.19 .44**

LMX JDI-Supervision -.27* -.33**
LMX JDI-Work -.20* -.41**
LMX JDI-Promotion -.27* -.41**
LMX JDI-Pay -.19 -.35**
LMX JDI-Job in General -.15 -.39**
JDI-Supervision .00 LMX .19 -.07
JDI-Work -.05 LMX .06 -.11
JDl-Promotion .06 LMX .20* -.13
JDI-Pay -.04 LMX .04 -.29*
JDI-Job in General -.14 LMX -.06 -.18

Note. N = 48 for results reported by Graen et al.; LMX = Leader-member exchange, Graen et al. (1982) did not use
the Job Descriptive Index-Job in General scale as a overall measure of satisfaction with job situation. They used the
Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank (Hoppock, 1935).
* p<, .05. **p<; .01.

variance were reasonably high, there seemd to be
evidence of greater between-unit variability.
Another issue, which was not addressed by
Graen et al. (1982), was the extent to which
between-unit and within-unit correlations account
for a particular total correlation (i.e., between
LMX and turnover) and the difference between
these two correlations. Graen et al. calculated
within- and between-group scores but they neither
conducted statistical tests of the difference between
such correlations nor did they specify the number
of units or groups on which their study was based
so that such tests could be conducted. Within-
and between-unit correlations reflect the relation
of LMX and turnover based on either within-unit
deviation scores or between-unit deviations. In this
case, the within-unit correlation (r = —.25) is larger
than the between-unit correlation (r = —.11),
indicating that the within-unit deviations serve as
a better predictor of turnover than deviations
between units. The difference between these cor-
relations, however, is not statistically significant
(Z = .49, ns).
The zero-order and first-order partial correlations
of LMX, employee attitude scales, and turnover
appear in Table 3. The first set of partial correla-
tions examined the relation between LMX and
turnover while holding constant each of the satis-
faction scales. The second set of partial correlations
held constant LMX in each of the attitude-turnover
relations. The results of these analyses appear
somewhat different from those reported by Graen
et al. (1982). In their study, after controlling for
each of the employee attitude scales, the LMX-
turnover relations remained statistically significant
and only slightly diminished in all five cases, as
can be seen in Table 3 (the values in parentheses).
In the present study, however, the nonsignificant
zero-order correlation between LMX and turnover
was elevated to statistical significance (p < .05) in
three of the five cases when first-order partial
correlations were computed, holding constant em-
ployee attitudes. Not only did partialing out JDI-
Supervision not substantially reduce the LMX-
turnover correlation, as might be expected (but
not found to be the case by Graen et al. 1982), it
actually inflated the relation to r = —.27, p < .05
(from a zero-order correlation of r = —.19, ns).
Similar results were obtained when LMX was
partialed out of the employee attitudes-turnover
relations.
In the present case, several of the employee
attitudes (i.e., JDI scales) apparently served to
mask the relation between LMX and turnover,
which actually brought the obtained values of the
first-order partial correlations closer in magnitude
to the findings reported by Graen et al. (1982).
Leader-member exchange and each of the em-
ployee attitudes were highly correlated (r - .51),
with the highest relation found for LMX and JDI-
Supervision (r = .68, p < .001).
Discussion
The results of this study tend to support Graen
et al.'s (1982) finding that leader-member exchange
 SHORT NOTES
is a stronger predictor of turnover than average
leadership style, even though the magnitude of the
relations obtained in the present study are not as
compelling, particularly as indicated by the hit-
rate analysis. Further support was provided for the
validity of the Graen et al. findings concerning
LMX and employee attitude predictors of turnover.
Both studies found LMX to be superior in the
prediction of turnover than employee attitudes.
On balance, the present constructive replication
seemed to provide support for and extend the
generality of Graen et al.'s findings concerning
leader-member exchange and turnover. In light of
the variance restriction on the criterion variable
and thus the conservative nature of the present
tests, these results may be viewed as even stronger
support for the Graen et al. findings. A point
needs to be made, however, concerning the inter-
pretation of the present results. The WABA sug-
gested that both within- and between-unit variation
is reasonably high, but within-unit deviations served
as a stronger predictor of turnover than did be-
tween-unit deviations (although the difference be-
tween the two correlations was not statistically
significant). This suggests that perhaps the LMX-
turnover relationship is due more to individual
differences than to work group differences. Another
potential explanation concerns a different perspec-
tive on dyads. It might be the case that supervisor-
subordinate dyads, in the present context, exhibited
variance both within and between work groups
(Dansereau, 1984). Further research might consider
more completely examining these notions.
References
Dansereau, E, Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984).
Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient
approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
781
Dansereau, F., & Dumas, M. (1977). Pitfalls and pratfalls
in drawing inferences about leadership behavior in
organizations. In J. G. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 68-83). Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau, E, Graen, G., & Haga, B. (1975). A vertical
dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations. A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13, 46-78.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. E (1962). Patterns of
leadership behavior related to employee grievances and
turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.
Graen, G., (1976). Role-making processes within complex
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Graen, G., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of
leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
Katerberg, R., & Horn, P. (1981). Effects of within-group
and between-groups variation in leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 66, 218-223.
Lykken, D. T. (1984). Statistical significance in psycho-
logical research. In T. S. Bateman & G. R. Ferris
(Eds.), Method and analysis in organizational research
(pp. 54-64). Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Co.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, con-
sequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mobley, W. H., Griffith, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino,
B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the
employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86,
493-522.
Smith, P. C, Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The
measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Received November 27, 1984
Revision received January 7, 1985