LMX-7 Copyright © 1984 by the American Psychological Association.

Reproduced with permission

from Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written
permission from the American Psychological Association.

1. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand; do you usually know how satisfied your
immediate supervisor is with what you do?
a. (4 = Always know where I stand; 3 = Usually know where I stand; 2 = Seldom know
where I stand; 1 = Never know where I stand)
2. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs?
a. (4 = Completely; 3 = Well enough; 2 = Some but not enough; 1 = Not at all)
3. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential?
a. (4 = Fully; 3 = As much as the next person; 2 = Some but not enough; 1 = Not at all)
4. Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her
position, what are the chances that he or she would be personally inclined to use power to help
you solve problems in your work?
a. (4 = Certainly would; 3 = Probably would; 2 = Might or might not; 1 = No chance)
5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, to what
extent can you count on him or her to “bail you out” at his or her expense when you really need
it?
a. (4 = Certainly would; 3 = Probably would; 2 = Might or might not; 1 = No chance)
6. I have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his or her
decisions if he or she were not present to do so.
a. (4 = Certainly would; 3 = Probably would; 2 = Maybe; 1 = Probably not)
7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor?
a. (4 = Extremely effective; 3 = Better than average; 2 = About average; 1 = Less than
average)

Note. Cronbach’s coefficient α was .86 at Time 1 and .84 at Time 2.

LMX-7 and SLMX-7 Reprinted from The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M.,
Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective, p. 237, Table 3,
Copyright (1995), with permission from Elsevier.

1. Do you know where you stand with your leader … do you usually know how satisfied your leader
is with what you do? (Does your member usually know)
a. Rarely; Occasionally; Sometimes; Fairly Often; Very Often
2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs? (How well do you
understand)
a. Not a Bit; A Little; A Fair Amount; Quite a Bit; A Great Deal
3. How well does your leader recognize your potential? (How well do you recognize)
a. Not at All; A Little; Moderately; Mostly; Fully
 4. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/ her position, what are the
chances that your leader would use his/ her power to help you solve problems in your work?
(What are the changes [sic] that you would)
a. None; Small; Moderate; High; Very High
5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that
he/she would “bail you out,” at his/ her expense? (What are the chances that you would)
a. None; Small; Moderate; High; Very High
6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/ her decision if he/she
were not present to do so? (Your member would)
a. Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree
7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? (Your member)
a. Note. Item responses were Extremely Ineffective; Worse Then[sic] Average; Average;
Better Than Average; Extremely Effective

Continuous scale of sum of 5-point items (1 left to 5 right). Leader’s form consists of same seven items
asked about member of (leader in parentheses). Expected agreement between leader and member
reports is positive and strong and used as index of quality of data. Reliability information was not
provided in the paper.

LMX-7 Copyright © 1993 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission from
3Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of
leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.78.4.662. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from
the American Psychological Association.

1. Regardless of how much power he/she has built into his/her position, my supervisor would be
personally inclined to use his/her power to help me solve problems in my work.
2. I can count on my supervisor to “bail me out” even at his or her own expense, when I really
need it.
3. My supervisor understands my problems and needs.
4. My supervisor recognizes my potential.
5. My supervisor has enough confidence in me that he/she would defend and justify my decisions
if I were not present to do so.
6. I usually know where I stand with my supervisor.
7. My working relationship with my supervisor is effective.

Note. Item responses ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).

Coefficient α reliabilities ranged from .80 to .90 across two samples and three time periods.
LMX-8 Copyright © 1996 by the Academy of Management. Reproduced with permission from Bauer,
T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). The development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. This scale is the same as Liden et al. (1993) above,
except that instead of dropping the second half of item #1 in Scandura and Graen (1984) as did Liden
et al (1993), they divided it into two items: “I usually know where I stand with my manager,” and “I
usually know how satisfied my manager is with me.” These authors also changed the wording of the
last item: “I would characterize the working relationship I have with my supervisor as extremely
effective.”

Coefficient α reliability for this scale was .94.

LMX-MDM Copyright © 1998 by SAGE Publications. From Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998).
Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale
development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

1. I respect my manager’s knowledge of and competence on the job.

2. My manager would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.
3. My manager is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.
4. I do not mind working my hardest for my manager.
5. My manager would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others.
6. I like my manager very much as a person.
7. I do work for my manager that goes beyond what is expected of me in my job.
8. I admire my manager’s professional skills.
9. My manager defends (would defend) my work actions to a superior, even without complete
knowledge of the issue in question.
10. My manager is a lot of fun to work with.
11. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my manager’s work
goals.
12. I am impressed with my manager’s knowledge of his/her job.

Note. Item responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The items presented
above are the same as the original, except that item #7 has been revised given that many of today’s
workers either do not have a formal job description or are not familiar with it.

The scale assesses 4 dimensions: Professional Respect (1, 8, 12), Loyalty (2, 5, 9), Affect (3, 6, 10), and
Contribution (4, 7, 11). The same response scale is used for all 12 items. Coefficient α reliabilities from
the organizational samples (including extra analyses from the addendum of the article) were .90 for
affect, .78 for loyalty, .77 for contribution, and .92 for professional respect.