Liden 1998

Journal of Management
1998, Vol. 24, No. 1, 43-72
Multidimensionafity of
Leader-Member Exchange:
An Empirical Assessment through
Scale Development
Robert C. L i d e n
University of Illinois at Chicago
John M. M a s l y n
Vanderbilt University
Whether Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is a unidimensional or

a multidimensional construct was assessed through the development
and validation of a multidimensional measure. Item analysis involving
302 working students, followed by construct and criterion-related vali-
dation using 249 employees representing two organizations resulted in
a multidimensional LMX scale. The results provided support for the
affect, loyalty, and contribution dimensions identified by Dienesch and
Liden (1986), as well as a fourth dimension, professional respect.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory suggests that leaders do not use the
same style in dealing with all subordinates, but rather develop a different type of
relationship or exchange with each subordinate (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,
1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Graen, Novak, &
Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen & Scandura, 1987). These relationships range from
those that are based strictly on employment contracts (i.e., low LMX, or "out-
group") to those that are characterized by mutual trust, respect, liking and recipro-
cal influence (i.e., high LMX or "in-group;" Dansereau, et al., 1975).
Research on LMX has shown significant associations with many important
work outcomes. For example, LMX is negatively related to turnover (Graen,
Liden & Hoel, 1982) and turnover intentions (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), and
positively related to organizational commitment (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986),
satisfaction with supervision (Schriesheim & Gardiner, 1992), supervisory ratings
of job performance (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1993, 1994; Graen, Novak, &
Sommerkamp, 1982), autonomy (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986), satisfaction
with work (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), and frequency of promotions (Wakaba-
Direct all correspondence to: Robert C. Liden, Department of Managerial Studies MC 243, University of Illinois
at Chicago, 601 S. Morgan, Chicago, IL 60607-7123, e-mail <bobliden@uic.edu>.
Copyright © 1998 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063
43
44 ROBERT C. LIDEN AND JOHN M. MASLYN
yashi, Graen, Graen, & Graen, 1988). Although this research has been appealing,
there have been criticisms and suggestions for improvement (e.g., Vecchio &
Gobdel, 1984). One suggestion is that LMX is a multidimensional, not a unidi-
mensional construct (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Also, none of the published LMX
articles have presented formal psychometric support for the most frequently used
LMX measure. The main purpose of the current research was to assess the propo-
sition that LMX is a multidimensional construct. This was accomplished by
attempting to develop and validate a psychometrically sound, multidimensional
measure of LMX.
Mulfidimensionality of LMX
Theoretical support for the multidimensionality of LMX may be derived
from role theory and social exchange theory. The theoretical foundation of LMX
has been built using role theory (Graen, 1976). According to this approach, lead-
ers test subordinates with various work assignments in a series of role making
episodes. The degree to which subordinates comply with task demands and
demonstrate a worthiness to be trusted dictates the type of LMX relationship that
forms. In turn, the type of LMX determines the extent to which the leader recipro-
cates with work-related resources such as information, challenging task assign-
ments, and autonomy (Graen & Scandura, 1987). The provision of resources by
the leader in return for subordinate task behaviors represents an exchange.
According to Graen and his colleagues, these exchanges are limited to work-
related commodities. In this way, LMXs are unidimensional, based upon the work
behaviors of leaders and subordinates (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). However, role theory, which has provided the theoreti-
cal foundation for LMX research (e.g., Graen, 1976), stresses that roles are multi-
dimensional (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Jacobs, 1971). For example, some subordinates
may focus on their tasks, while neglecting social interaction, some may stress
social interaction and not tasks, and others may be weak or strong on both dimen-
sions (Bales, 1958). Leaders' roles are also comprised of multiple factors, includ-
ing such activities as supervising, allocating resources, and serving as a liaison
(Kim & Yukl, 1995; Tsui, 1984).
As implied by the exchange in leader-member exchange, social exchange
theory is highly relevant to LMX research (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Consider-
able attention, beginning primarily in the 1950s and 1960s and extending to the
present, has been paid to exchange processes (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960;
Homans, 1958; Sahlins, 1972; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Curiously, this research
was overlooked by LMX theorists (e.g., Dansereau, et a1.,1975; Dienesch &
Liden, 1986; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987)
until recently (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997;
Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne & Green, 1993; Wayne, Shore, & Liden,
1997). Social exchange theorists have identified numerous material and non-
material goods that may be exchanged (Gouldner, 1960). Advice, workflow, and
friendship are some of the exchange types that have been recognized (Brass &
Burkhardt, 1992; Krackhardt, 1990; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), suggesting that
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

MULTID1MENSIONALITY OF LMX 45
exchange relationships between individuals appear to be multidimensional. Thus,

both roles and exchanges between role occupants appear to be characterized by
multiple dimensions.
Consistent with the multidimensional perspective advocated by role and
social exchange theorists, Dienesch and Liden (1986) proposed that although
work behaviors stressed by Graen and colleagues are important, LMXs may
develop and endure in a number of ways. Dienesch and Liden suggested that
LMXs may be based on varying amounts of three "currencies of exchange:" Task-
related behaviors (labeled contribution), loyalty to each other (labeled loyalty),
and simply liking one another (labeled affect). These authors proposed that an
exchange might be based on one, two, or all three of these dimensions. Thus, they
rejected the view that LMX is a unidimensional construct in favor of a multidi-
mensional conceptualization of the construct. Further, they argued that there may
be variance in the weight or importance of each dimension across individuals.
As with other constructs in organizational behavior (e.g., organizational
commitment, justice, job satisfaction), identification and empirical support for
multiple dimensions increases our understanding of both the construct itself as
well as relationships with important organizational outcomes. A multidimensional
perspective of LMX may help in understanding the development as well as main-
tenance of LMX relationships. Another important implication of a multidimen-
sional conceptualization of LMX is that there may be much variability within
exchange types (e.g., low and high quality LMXs). That is, a member may
develop a high LMX relationship for a number of reasons. For example, a high
quality exchange dominated by contribution may involve a leader and member
who frequently work together on projects after normal business hours or on the
weekend, whereas a high quality exchange based on affect may involve a leader
and member who spend much time at work discussing non-work issues. Under-
standing these dimensions of LMX may provide insight into the relationship and
result in differential prediction of outcomes depending on the chosen
currency(ies) of exchange.
Dimensions of LMX
Contribution. Dienesch and Liden defined perceived contribution as the
"perception of the amount, direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each
member puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad"
(1986: 624). Graen and his colleagues (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987)
have emphasized the role of a subordinate's work-related behaviors on the devel-
opment of LMXs. In new leader-member dyads, the leader is thought to evaluate
each subordinate's performance on delegated tasks. Subordinates whose perfor-
mance impresses the leader and who "accept a leader's invitation" develop an
exchange with the leader that is of higher "quality" than subordinates who have
not performed as well according to the leader. Higher quality refers to greater
exchange of valued resources between leader and member (Bass, 1990). Valued
resources provided by leaders to some select members include such things as
physical resources (e.g., budgetary support, materials, and equipment) as well as
information and attractive task assignments (Graen & Cashman, 1975).

Although LMX theorizing has included a discussion of both member and

leader contributions to the exchange, the focus has been on the task-related behav-
iors of members (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Members who impress the leader
receive resources and support that further enhances job performance (Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Dunegan, Duchon, & Uhl-Bien, 1992; Liden & Graen, 1980;
Scandura, et al., 1986). In addition, members of such high quality LMX
exchanges engage in tasks and duties that extend beyond what is required from the
formal employment contract (Graen, 1976; Liden & Graen, 1980; Wayne &
Green, 1993).
Loyalty. A second LMX dimension proposed by Dienesch and Liden
(1986) was the extent to which the leader and member are loyal to one another.
Loyalty was defined as the extent to which both leader and member publicly
support each other's actions and character. Extending Graen and his colleagues'
inclusion of loyalty as an outcome of the LMX developmental process (Graen,
1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987), Dienesch and Liden suggested that loyalty may
be better portrayed as a component or dimension of LMX, playing a critical role
in the development and maintenance of LMXs. Loyalty has been discussed in
previous research as instrumental in determining the types of tasks that are
entrusted in members. Leaders are more likely to ask loyal members to take on
tasks that require independent judgment and/or responsibility (cf. Liden & Graen,.
1980; Scandura et al., 1986).
Affect. Dienesch and Liden defined affect as "the mutual affection
members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attrac-
tion rather than work or professional values" (1986: 625). Mutual liking between
leader and member is expected to be involved in developing and on-going LMXs
to varying degrees (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In LMXs that are work-based with
contribution being the most important LMX dimension, affect may play little or
no role in the exchange. On the other hand, some LMXs may be dominated by
affect. For example, the leader and member frequently interact simply because
they enjoy each other's company. Indeed, friendships often develop through work
interactions (Bridge & Baxter, 1992). More specifically, empirical research has
provided support for affect as a critical dimension in LMX development (Dockery
& Steiner, 1990; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) and in existing LMXs (Judge &
Ferris, 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). In the Liden et al. study, liking was a better
predictor of LMX than was the leader's assessment of the member's performance.
Differential relations with outcomes. An important characteristic of multi-
dimensionality is shown empirically if the dimensions differentially predict vari-
ous outcomes consistent with theory and research. How might we expect the three
dimensions to act in the prediction of organizational outcomes? In some cases,
such as satisfaction with supervision, it could be expected that based on the
concept of exchange of valued resources (Graen & Cashman, 1975), relationships
based on high levels of affect, loyalty, and contribution would all be predictive,
albeit for different reasons. Organizational commitment, a measure associated
with the larger organization rather than the supervisor per se, might be less
affected by the degree of affect or loyalty toward the supervisor, but significantly
related to contribution. Individuals who contribute more to the work group may

MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF LMX 47
do so to benefit the organization, not just the leader. In this way, contribution may
be related to organizational commitment (Shore & Wayne, 1993). As a result of
differential task assignments, loyal members may report higher levels of auton-
omy in carrying out their jobs and a resulting high level of work satisfaction
compared to less loyal members who receive less task autonomy from the leader.
Supervisor ratings of subordinate performance have been shown to be affected by
liking (Tsui & Barry, 1986; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), and thus should be related to
the affect dimension. In addition, demonstrated loyalty and willingness to contrib-
ute above and beyond job requirements may be recognized by leaders as superior
performance.
Other dimensions. Dienesch and Liden (1986) did not claim that contribu-
tion, loyalty, and affect are the only LMX dimensions. They acknowledged the
possibility that dimensions other than these three might be involved in developing
and established LMXs. Other possible dimensions are suggested by social
exchange theory (e.g., Hollander, 1980; Homans, 1958; Jacobs, 1971). For exam-
ple, other dimensions of LMX might include trust, respect, openness, and honesty
(Graen & Scandura, 1987). Another purpose of the current research was to empir-
ically explore the existence of LMX dimensions in addition to those proposed by
Dienesch and Liden.
Existing Measures of LMX

A wide variety of measures have been used to assess LMX over the past 20
years. The original measure, referred to as negotiating latitude (rather than LMX),
consisted of 2 items (Dansereau et. al., 1975) and later 4 items (Graen & Cash-
man, 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Vecchio, 1985). A fifth item was then added to
the original 4 items and the new measure was renamed, leader-member exchange,
or LMX (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Ferris, 1985). Leader-member exchange
has also been assessed with 7-item (e.g., Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982;
Scandura & Graen, 1984; Seers & Graen, 1984; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) 12-item
(Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984), and 14-item (Wakabayashi, Graen, & Uhl-Bien,
1990) versions of the scale. Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) developed a 13-item
"information exchange" measure to assess LMX. Some researchers have
employed a one-item scale assessing a low LMX/high LMX dichotomy (Duchon,
et al., 1986; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984). In some studies, the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) has been used as a surrogate for LMX (e.g.,
Katerberg &Hom, 1981; Williams, Podsakoff, & Huber, 1992).
Although Graen and Cashman (1975) provided construct validation support
for the 4-item negotiating latitude measure, similar psychometric information has
not been published for the 7-item LMX measure, which has been the most
frequently used LMX measure in the 1980s and 1990s (Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Schriesheim & Gardiner, 1992). Such psychometric assessment is needed as only
2 of the original 4 items are included in the LMX-7 measure. Also, it is not known
to what extent measurement problems have arisen from the double-barrelled item
contained in the scale, which was noticed and corrected by Bauer and Green
(1996). Furthermore, the scale anchors do not appear to possess equal interval

properties, a potential problem that has been addressed in a number of ways:

Wayne and Ferris (1990) modified the original anchors to fit a 5-point scale
format. Other researchers have used 7-point "strongly disagree" to "strongly
agree" response scales (Bauer & Green, 1996; Liden et al., 1993). Similarly, in the
communication literature, a 5-point, "a very little extent," to "a very great extent"
scaling has been frequently used (e.g., Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). Given the
amount of research that has relied upon the LMX-7 measure, further psychometric
testing is needed so that research using the measure can be more accurately evalu-
ated. But regardless of the psychometric properties of LMX-7, it is not capable of
capturing multiple dimensions. Thus, there is a need for a psychometrically
sound, multidimensional measure of LMX.
We are aware of three attempts to develop a multidimensional measure of
LMX (Dienesch, 1985; Phillips, Duran, & Howell, 1993; Schriesheim, Neider,
Scandura, & Tepper, 1992). Dienesch wrote items to reflect the affect, loyalty,
and contribution dimensions of LMX, and tested these items with students. In
exploratory factor analyses, affect emerged as a separate dimension, but loyalty
and contribution items loaded on the same factor. Phillips et al. (1993) tested
Dienesch's items with a sample of mid-level managers of a retail organization.
Although exploratory factor analyses did not reveal separate LMX dimensions,
confirmatory factor analysis did provide support for affect, loyalty and contribu-
tion as separate LMX dimensions.
The Schriesheim et al. (1992) measure, called LMX-6, includes 2 items writ-
ten for each of the three LMX dimensions: contribution, loyalty, and affect.
Psychometric work for LMX-6 was initiated with scale testing of the six items,
representing the three LMX dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis provided
support for three separate dimensions. No attempt was made by Dienesch (1985),
Phillips, et al. (1990), or Schriesheim et al. (1992) to determine whether additional
dimensions of LMX exist. In the current research, a search for additional LMX
dimensions was conducted, followed by rigorous content validation of a large
pool of items written to capture each LMX dimension. In summary, the main
purpose of the current research was to assess the dimensionality of the LMX
construct through scale development and validation, including discrimination in
the prediction of important organizational outcomes. A desired outgrowth of the
research was to develop a measure that could enhance future LMX research.
Methods
Overview
Our approach in evaluating the dimensionality of the LMX construct was to
develop a scale designed to assess different aspects of LMX relationships. We
followed an accepted approach to scale development outlined by DeVellis (1991)
and Hinkin (1995). Items were generated from an understanding of the LMX liter-
ature as well as from reports of experiences of individuals from the work setting,
subjected to content validation, administered to a large and diverse sample of
working students, and again administered several weeks later to generate re-test
data. Items surviving these analyses were then administered to employees repre-

MULTIDIMENS1ONALITY OF LMX 49
senting two organizations. In addition, six validation variables were collected in

one of these organizations, and one validation variable was available in the other
organization. This second phase of scale development was designed to assess the
construct and criterion-related validity of the new LMX scale. The following
details the process undertaken.
Item Generation
Based on dimensions of supervisor-subordinate relationships identified in the
leadership literature, and some items from Dienesch (1985), we generated an
initial set of 80 items. These items focused on the contribution, affect, and loyalty
dimensions of LMX proposed by Dienesch & Liden (1986). Additionally, inter-
views were conducted with 24 Master's and Ph.D. students from business schools
in the Southeast and Midwest who were either currently employed or had recent
work experience to determine if additional dimensions of supervisor-subordinate
relationships might also be appropriate. This sample was reasonably diverse in
terms of sex (17 males and 7 females), age (M = 30.9, ranging from 23 to 44), and
hierarchical level (range of two to ten levels from the top position in the organiza-
tion), and represented public, private, manufacturing, service, professional, and
military organizations. The participants were asked about the kinds of relation-
ships they had with their immediate supervisors and to give specific examples of
what the supervisor and the respondent (subordinate) does (did) that lets him or
her know how the relationship was going. Participant descriptions of relationships
with leaders included the contribution, loyalty, and affect dimensions identified
by Dienesch and Liden (1986). Some participants also identified trust and profes-
sional respect as being critical in their relationships with leaders.
Based on the interviews, trust was defined as the perception of the degree of
genuine concern for the best interest of the other member of the dyad as reflected
in supportive behavior and honesty. Professional respect was defined as the
perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad had built a reputation,
within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work. This
perception may be based on historical data concerning the person, such as:
personal experience with the individual; viewing the person's resume; and awards
or other professional recognition achieved by the person. Thus, leaders and
members may develop perceptions of professional respect before working with or
even meeting their counterpart in the dyad. To reflect trust and professional
respect, we wrote 40 additional items with the interview responses serving as
guidelines.
Content Validation
Content validation of the 120 generated items was performed in two phases.
First, eight faculty and Ph.D. students of organizational behavior at a university
business school in the Southeast served as expert judges and were asked to iden-
tify which of the five defined dimensions each of the 120 items was intended to
capture. Recommendations to drop, change, or add items, to mark unclear items,
and to provide written comments were solicited. Comparisons were then made
across the judges for each of the items. Based on written comments from the
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24. NO. 1, 1998

judges or a high degree of inconsistency in identifying particular items with one of

the dimensions, 20 items were dropped from the item pool. Additionally, the
judges indicated that they were not easily able to distinguish between the loyalty
and trust dimensions, that certain items generally fell into both categories (cf.
Butler, 1991). Based on this difficulty, and the theoretical basis for the dimension-
alization of LMX (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986), a decision was made to redefine
the loyalty dimension to include notions of trust and to drop the separate trust
dimension. Additionally, as a result of independent written comments following
the classification task, each of the other dimension definitions was also modified
slightly for clarification.
Six faculty and Ph.D. students of organizational behavior and human
resources management from a university business school in the Midwest served as
a second set of expert judges for content validation of the remaining 100 items.
Revised definitions of the dimensions (please refer to Table 1), based on the first
phase of content validation, were provided to these judges. These definitions
served as the basis for item categorization on the four remaining dimensions of
LMX.
Selection of items to be retained for inclusion in data collection question-
naires was based on the number of judges in agreement that the item belonged to a
specific dimension. Items that reflected agreement from at least five out of the six
Table 1. LMX Dimension Definitions a

Affect: The mutual affection members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interper-
sonal attraction, rather than work or professional values. Such affection may be manifested in the
desire for and/or occurrence of a relationship which has personally rewarding components and
outcomes (e.g., a friendship).
Loyalty: The expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of the other
member of the LMX dyad. Loyalty involves a faithfulness to the individual that is generally con-
sistent from situation to situation.
Contribution: Perception of the current level of work-oriented activity each member puts forth
toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad. Important in the evaluation of work-ori-
ented activity is the extent to which the subordinate member of the dyad handles responsibility and
completes tasks that extend beyond the job description and/or employment contract; and likewise,
the extent to which the supervisor provides resources and opportunities for such activity.
Professional Respect: Perception of the degree to which each member of the dyad has built a rep-
utation, within and/or outside the organization, of excelling at his or her line of work. This percep-
tion may be based on historical data concerning the person, such as: personal experience with the
individual; comments made about the person from individuals within or outside the organization;
and awards or other professional recognition achieved by the person. Thus it is possible, though
not required, to have developed a perception of professional respect before working with or even
meeting the person.
Note: a. These definitions were provided to the six expert judges at the Midwestem university. The judges
were asked to indicate which dimension they felt that each item was intended to measure by writing the
letter A, L, C, or P to indicate the appropriate dimension. When they were not sure, they were asked to
write either "change" (meaning that the item might be acceptable if rewritten) or "drop" (it's hopeless)
next to the item in question.

judges were retained. A total of 38 items survived the second content validation.
Because of the lack of previous theoretical delineation of the professional respect
dimension, we wrote four additional items for this dimension, to ensure an
adequate chance of being represented after further validation procedures.
Finally, these 42 items were revisited by the authors for theoretical content
adequacy prior to submitting them to empirical analysis. Content adequacy evalu-
ation is different from an evaluation by judges of whether items reflect defined
dimensions, and involved an evaluation of the "theoretical... correspondence
between a measure's items and a construct's delineated content domain"
(Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993, p. 389). This was
done to help ensure that items retained for empirical analysis were cleanly reflect-
ing LMX theory and the underlying theoretical dimensions of LMX. Each item
was reviewed for an indication of exchange in general, for consistency with the
notion of a "currency of exchange" versus a probable antecedent to an exchange
relationship or an outcome of an exchange I , or simply for potential measurement
problems. Eleven items were dropped from further scale consideration through
this process: three were reflective of perceived similarity between supervisor and
subordinate (an antecedent: Liden, et al., 1993) (e.g., "I share interests in leisure
activities (e.g., sports, movies) with my supervisor"), four were associated with
likely outcomes (e.g., "my supervisor has invited me to his/her home for a dinner,
party, or informal evening"), two required speculations regarding the opinions of
others (e.g., "my supervisor's skills and abilities are respected by his/her peers or
managers"), one was inconsistent with the on-going relationship (e.g., "I would
want to keep in touch with my supervisor after we no longer work together, even
if we were not working in the same organization"), and one contained potentially
gender-bound language. The item by dimension distribution of the resulting 31
items was: contribution, 5 items; loyalty, 9 items; affect, 6 items; and professional
respect, 11 items. All LMX item responses were scaled from Strongly Disagree =
1 to Strongly Agree = 7.
Participants
Data were collected from 302 working students and 251 organizational
employees. Initial item analysis was conducted with the students samples, while
convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity was assessed with the
organizational samples. For all respondents, participation was voluntary and
confidentiality of responses was assured. All students who were working or had
recent work experience were asked to participate and all did so, for a response rate
of 100% (including students who were absent from class when data were collected
produces a response rate of approximately 80%). Student participants were
located at one of three universities (two in the Midwest and one in the Southeast);
either current or recent work experience was required. Approximately one-third
were enrolled in graduate-level business programs, and two-thirds were under-
graduate students. Based on the findings of Liden et al. (1993) that LMXs develop
very early (typically within the first 2 weeks) in the life of leader-member dyads,
long-term tenure with the leader was not a criterion for selection into the sample.
The demographic breakdown of the 302 working students was: 62% male, 38%
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24. NO. 1. 1998

female; 71% white, 8% black, 10% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 4% other; mean age of
26 years (SD = 6.4); and a mean of 7.8 years of work experience (SD = 6.1). One-
hundred and seventy-one students received questionnaires that included the 31
LMX items, demographic items, the LMX-7 items, as well as the Acquiescence
Response Set Scale and the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Question-
naires that included only the LMX items and the demographic items were
received by 131 students. Of the 302 students, 128 students received a follow-up
questionnaire 8-10 weeks after the first questionnaire which included the same
LMX items. This questionnaire was administered for the purpose of assessing
test-retest reliability.
The organizational employees sample consisted of full-time employees from
two industry segments and were surveyed as part of larger projects (Liden,
Wayne, Bradway, & Sparrowe, 1994; Sparrowe, 1994). One hundred eighty-three
were employed in the hospitality industry (response rate of 75%), and 68
(response rate of 60%) were from a large heavy equipment manufacturer. In addi-
tion, 19 managers (response rate of 94.7%) from the heavy manufacturing organi-
zation rated the performance of the 68 employees in the sample. The 183
hospitality industry employees represented multiple work groups from multiple
properties. Most of these employees worked at the lower levels of the organiza-
tions, such as front desk clerks, housekeepers, cooks, and food servers. Partici-
pants from the heavy equipment manufacturer included staff and managers from
the purchasing, travel, and product distribution departments. The demographic
breakdown of the full-time working sample was: 53% female, 41% male, and 6%
not responding; 71% white, 10% black, 5% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 2% other, and
7% preferring not to respond. The mean age of this sample was approximately
33.6 years. The average length of tenure with the organization was 7 years, 7
months.
Measures
All students responded to the 31 LMX items that survived the initial phases
of scale development. In addition, acquiescence response set (Couch & Keniston,
1960) and social desirable response bias (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) scales were
assessed from a subset of the student participants. All organizational employees
also responded to the LMX items. In addition, employees of the heavy manufac-
turing organization responded to the LMX-7 measure, used previously to assess
LMX, and other measures employed to examine the convergent and discriminant
validity of the resulting new scale. These included satisfaction with the supervi-
sor, co-workers, and work; autonomy, and turnover intentions. Managers of the
heavy manufacturing organization also rated the job performance of the partici-
pants. Organizational commitment was assessed with the hospitality industry
employees, but not in the heavy manufacturing organization. Thus, sample sizes
varied across analyses involving the validation variables and LMX-7.
LMX.7(previous LMXseale). Seven items adapted from Scandura and
Graen (1984) were used to reflect an established measure of LMX. Response cate-
gories were slightly modified to permit scaling from Strongly Disagree = 1 to
Strongly Agree = 7 so as to more closely approximate interval scaling than the

original LMX-7 scale. This scaling format has been used in previous LMX
research (e.g., Liden, et al., 1993). The items from each of the scales were
summed to create the scale (t~ = .89 for student samples; ct = .91 for organization
samples). This scale was included for purposes of establishing convergent valid-
ity, as well as to determine incremental validity of the new scale relative to this
existing measure of LMX.
Satisfaction with supervisor. Eighteen items from the revised version of
the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Balzer, Brannick, Eggleston, Gibson, Iron-
son, Josephson, Paul, Reilly, & Whalen, 1987) were used to measure participant
satisfaction with their supervisor as related to the supervisor's demonstration of
interest in and concern about the employee. Total scores were established by
summing the item responses such that higher values reflected greater satisfaction
with the supervisor (o~ = .89).
Satisfaction with co-workers. Eighteen items from the revised version of
the JDI (Smith, et al., 1987) were used to measure participant satisfaction with
their co-workers. This scale was included for assessment of discriminant validity
of the new LMX scales. Specifically, a higher correlation was expected between
the LMX scales and supervisor satisfaction than between the LMX scales and co-
worker satisfaction. Total scores were established by summing the item responses
such that higher values reflected greater satisfaction with co-workers (oc = .87).
Satisfaction with work. Eighteen items from the revised version of the JDI
(Smith, et al., 1987) were used to measure satisfaction with the work itself. Total
scores were established by summing the item responses such that higher values
reflected greater satisfaction with work (or = .79).
Autonomy. Three items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman &
Oldham, 1975), revised according to recommendations of Idaszak and Drasgow
(1987), were used to assess member perceptions of control in deciding when and
how to carry out tasks. Responses were summed to form a composite (o~ = .72).
Job performance. Managers rated subordinates on seven items assessing
cooperation, communications, planning and organizing, technical competence,
quality of work, quantity of work, and overall job performance. This scale repre-
sents an adaptation of this organization's performance rating scale which was
based on job analyses. Each item was scaled from 1 = minimally acceptable to 5 =
superior. All seven items were summed to form a scale (o~ = .87).
Organizational eommitment. Three items from O'Reilly & Chatman
(1986) were used to measure the affective component of organizational commit-
ment. Response categories ranged from Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree =
7, with higher values indicating greater commitment. These items were summed
to form a composite (o~ = .80). Data on this variable were available only for the
hospitality employee sample.
Turnover intentions. Employee intentions to quit their jobs were assessed
with 3 items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
(Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982). For example, "How likely is it
that you will actively look for a new job in the next year?", with anchors, "Not at
all likely = 1 to Extremely likely = 7." These items were summed to form a
composite (o~ = .74).

Acquiescence. Couch and Keniston's (1960) scale for assessing yea/nay

saying response sets (i.e., tendency to agree or disagree with items) was used.
Twenty items (8 reverse scored) were scaled on a seven-point "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree" scale and summed to form a single measure (o~ -- .72). Corre-
lations between this scale and the individual items identify items that are subject
to acquiescence bias. This scale was used only with student samples for purposes
of selecting items and assessing content validation.
Social desirability. The complete form of the Crowne and Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was used to identify those individ-
uals who would be likely to respond to the LMX items motivated by a social
desirability framework. Thirty-three items were responded to as either "true" or
"false" (scored true = 1 and false = 2) with reverse scoring resulting in a possible
score range of 33 to 66 when responses are summed (o~ = .72). Higher scores indi-
cate a greater tendency toward social desirability responding. Correlations
between this scale and the individual items detect items that are subject to a social
desirability bias. This scale was used only with student samples for purposes of
selecting items and assessing content validity. Although there is some difference
of opinion concerning the use of this measure as a control variable (Zerbe & Paul-
hus, 1987), the scale continues to be used for item selection in scale development
efforts (e.g., Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991).
Procedure
The 31 LMX items appeared in a questionnaire containing a subset of the
above described scales and demographic items. For participants from university
settings, questionnaires were provided to students during class time and either
completed during class (Midwest universities) or completed on the participants'
own time and returned directly to the researchers (Southeastern university).
Potential participants were told that the questionnaire was designed to examine
attitudes about the leadership styles of their immediate supervisors/managers.
Participation was voluntary and confidentiality assured.
Test-retest data collection. To assess item stability over time, the 31 LMX
items generated for this study were administered to the participants from the
Southeastern business school and one of the two Midwestern schools two separate
times approximately 8 and 10 weeks apart for the two schools, respectively.
Several students who had changed supervisors or had quit their jobs responded by
thinking of the same supervisor they were working for when they completed the
first questionnaire. For a subsample of the Midwestern school students, the first
questionnaire was administered too late in the term to permit use of the second,
retest, questionnaire. Of 150 potential participants for the retest portion of the
study, 128 (85%) responded to a shorter follow-up questionnaire containing the
31 LMX items. The 22 students not responding were all absent from class on the
day that the follow-up questionnaire was administered. Missing data on two of the
follow-up questionnaires resulted in a final sample size of 126 for the test-retest
analyses. At the completion of data collection, a detailed written debriefing of the
entire scale development effort, along with an explanation of test-retest reliability,
was provided to participants.

Data analysis overview. Data analysis was conducted in five phases. Given
the size and diversity of the sample, we performed item selection analyses using
the sample of working students, while the organizational employees sample was
utilized for confirmation and validation of the resulting scale. First, identification
of items that had little or no variance or were significantly correlated with either
acquiescence or social desirability, were eliminated. Second, exploratory factor
analysis was used to guide the selection of a reduced set of items. Third, confirma-
tory factor analysis was used with the organizational samples to assess the good-
ness of fit of the selected scale items with the proposed dimensions and with
competing models. Fourth, comparisons were made between the resulting dimen-
sion scales and the validation measures. And finally, to further examine the multi-
dimensionality of the new scale, differences among the four dimensions with
respect to relations with outcome variables was assessed.
Results
All of the initial item analyses, as well as exploratory factor analyses were
conducted using the working student samples.
Tests of Item Variance, Acquiescence and Social Desirability Response Sets
The first step in analyzing the data was to calculate the variance on each of
the 31 items. Items showing little variability would not be of much value and thus
would be removed from use in scale development. Although there is not an estab-
lished criterion for "adequate variability," a standard deviation of 1.0 was chosen
as representing an adequate amount of variability for usefulness as an item (L.R.
James, personal communication, November 4, 1993). All 31 items had standard
deviations exceeding 1.0 with a range from 1.19 to 2.08, and thus no items were
removed for lack of variability.
Next, all items were correlated with the Acquiescence Response Set scale
(N = 162) and with the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability scale (N = 161). The
2 items that correlated significantly with the Acquiescence Response Set scale and
the 3 items that correlated significantly with the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirabil-
ity scale were removed• These 5 significant correlations ranged in size from. 15 to
•18 ( all p < .05). At this point, 26 items remained for consideration in scale devel-
opment.
Factor Analyses
Using data collected from the sample of 302 working students, we conducted
an exploratory factor analysis using principal components with the number of factors
not specified• The magnitude and scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated four factors.
In the next factor analysis, we set the number of factors to four and interpreted factor
loadings based on the pattern matrix which resulted from oblique rotation (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 1989)• Oblique rotation was appropriate because of the anticipated
relation among the factors (cf. Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Analysis of the 26 items
resulted in four factors that explained 69.1% of the variance. Based on the oblique
factor pattern, each factor clearly reflected one of the four a priori dimensions•
Subsequent iterations were performed following deletion of cross-loaded items or

items that were theoretically inconsistent with their factor. The resulting solution
consisted of 11 items explaining 79.4% of the variance. The breakdown of these
items was affect (3 items), loyalty (3 items), contribution (2 items), and professional
respect (3 items). The rotated factor loadings for these 11 items appear in Table 2.
Although the exploratory analysis resulted in groups of items reflective of
the four a priori dimensions, the extent to which multidimensionality was truly
captured needed to be verified. To further assess multidimensionality, conf'trma-
tory factor analysis was performed. Differing from exploratory factor analysis,
confirmatory factor analysis allows for better integration of theory and measure-
ment (Hughes, Price, & Marrs, 1986; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). This is
accomplished through specific constraints imposed by the researcher based on
relevant theory (Long, 1983; McDonald & Marsh, 1990). As noted by Church and
Burke, "Whereas exploratory methods are advantageous when no a priori struc-
ture can be hypothesized, confirmatory methods provide significance tests and
goodness-of-fit indices for hypothesized models" (1994, p. 93).
Differences Between Organizations
Prior to merging the two organizational samples for the confirmatory analy-
ses, we tested for differences between the two organizations on the four LMX
T a b l e 2. Exploratory Factor A n a l y s i s Results of the L M X Items:

Oblique Rotation, Pattern Matrix
Professional
Item Affect Loyalty Contribution Respect
1 like my supervisor very much as a person. .91 .02 .10 --.03
My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to
have as a friend. .80 .09 -.01 .11
My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with. .72 .l I - . l0 .22
My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior,
even without complete knowledge of the issue in -.08 .91 -.05 -.07
question.
My supervisor would come to my defense if I were .13 .74 .06 .05
"attacked" by others.
My supervisor would defend me to others in the organi- .15 .70 .06 .07
zation if I made an honest mistake.
| do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is
.21 -.06 .86 - . 13
specified in my job description.
I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those nor-
mally required, to further the interests of my work - . 19 .l0 .81 .18
group.
I am impressed with my supervisor's knowledge of his/ - . 0 3 -.03 .00 .97
her job.
I respect my supervisor's knowledge of and competence .05 --.01 --.01 .91
on the job.
I admire my supervisor's professional skills. .13 .06 .05 .79

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of LMX Dimension Scalesa:

Manufacturing Sample and Hospitality Sample
Dimension Mean SD 1 2 3 4 Mean SD
1. Affect 4.85 1.32 .63 .30 .64 5.63 1.20

2. Loyalty 4.78 1.31 ,67 .38 .57 5.15 1.12
3. Contribution 5.25 1.20 ,49 .36 .29 5.54 1.10
4. Professional Respect 5.14 1.35 ,66 .54 .33 5.66 1.02
Note: a. Mean values can range from 1 to 7. Values left and below the diagonal represent the manufacturing
sample; N = 68. Values right and above the diagonal represent the hospitality sample, N = 181. All corre-
lations are significant at p < .01.
factors that emerged from the exploratory factor analyses. Means were signifi-
cantly higher in the hospitality sample than the manufacturing sample for affect
(t = 4.48, p < .01), loyalty (t = 2.17, p < .05), and professional respect (t = 2.91, p
< .01), and approached significance for contribution (t = 1.78, p < .08). However,
of greater importance than mean differences in scale development efforts, no
significant differences were found in the intercorrelations between the dimensions
as shown in Table 3. For example, of all correlations reported in Table 3, the
correlation between affect and contribution differed most between the manufac-
turing (r = .49) and the hospitality (r = .30) samples. Applying the formula for
testing the difference between correlations in independent samples (Hays~ 1973),
showed this difference in correlations to be nonsignificant (z = 1.56, ns). Given
these results, we combined the two samples for all further analyses.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Item selection was executed with the student samples, but all confirmatory
analyses were conducted exclusively with the data collected from the 251 organi-
zational participants (less 2 due to missing data, for a total N = 249). As in previ-
ous uses of confirmatory factor analysis in assessing construct dimensionality
(e.g., Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Rahim &
Magner, 1995), the models were tested with correlated factors and uncorrelated
error. The 4-factor, or hypothesized model, reflected the four dimensions of
affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect, as defined by the four origi-
nal a priori categories for the 11 chosen scale items.
The goodness-of-fit of a 4-factor model was tested in comparison to compet-
ing models through use of the LISREL 7 program in SPSS (J6reskog & S6rbom,
1989). Mulaik, James, Van Alstine, Bennett, Lind, & Stilwell (1989) noted that
even good fitting models can suffer from misspecification, suggesting that alter-
native models be considered when using structural equation modeling. The
competing models were: 1) the null model in which none of the variables are
related; 2) a single factor model, in which all items represent a single dimension.
Support for this model over all others would confirm the proposition of Graen and
his colleagues that LMX is a unidimensional construct (Graen & Scandura, 1987;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); 3) a 2-factor model composed of one factor containing

the work-related scales, contribution and professional respect, with the second
factor including the affect and loyalty items. Support for this model would suggest
that respondents are not able to distinguish between four dimensions, but only
between more objective aspects of the relationship that involve the work itself and
subjective aspects involving liking and loyalty; and 4) a 3-factor model in which
one factor contains the same work-related scale (combination of the contribution
and professional respect items) as the 2-factor model, but affect and loyalty are
retained as separate factors. In other words, the 3-factor model is the same as the
hypothesized model except that the work-related scales, contribution and profes-
sional respect are combined into 6ne factor. This model approximates that
described by Dienesch and Liden (1986) and parallels the three-dimensional LMX
scale developed by Schriesheim et al. (1992).
Several statistics were used to assess the relative fit between the obtained
data and each of the competing models. Although the X2 for the 4-factor model
was significant, signaling a difference between the hypothesized and observed
structures, this is often the case with large samples (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
Thus, we used other recommended measures to determine fit (Medsker, Williams,
& Holahan, 1994). Goodness-of-fit statistics appearing in Table 4 indicate that.the
hypothesized 4-factor model provides a good fit (CFI = .986; GFI = .960; AGFI =
.930), and a better fit than the alternative models tested. Of the fit statistics
presented, the comparative fit index (CFI), which is a modified version of the
normed fit index (NFI), is the index that best accounts for parsimony without
over-penalizing models that hypothesize more paths (Bentler, 1990; Williams &
Holahan, 1994). The goodness-of-fit (GFI) and adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI)
indices are presented for purposes of comparison with previous research.
As noted, alternative models may also adequately fit the observed relation-
ships. The fit of the hypothesized model relative to the competing models was
also assessed by examining the significance of the AX2 for adjacent models based
on their degrees of freedom. That is, differences between the: null and the 1-factor
models; 1-factor and 2-factor models; 2-factor and 3-factor models; and the 3-
factor and hypothesized or 4-factor models (see Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). A
significant difference in g2 between models indicates that the specified relations
among the variables in one model are a significantly better representation of the
data under analysis. As shown in Table 4, each of the AX2 tests was significant,
demonstrating the superiority of the 4-factor model over all competing models,
Providing further support for the hypothesized model are the completely stan-
dardized factor loadings (lambdas), ranging from .551 to .875 (shown in Figure 1).
With completely standardized estimates, both indicators and latent variables are
standardized. All of the factor loadings were statistically significant with t's rang-
ing from 7.10 to 16.96. Especially important for demonstrating multidimensional-
ity are the factor correlations (phi coefficients), because support for the 4-factor
model simply indicates that the factor correlations are less than 1.0. The factor
correlations from thephi matrix, also reported in Figure 1, range from .456 to .763.
Although moderately high, they do not reflect redundancy between the four dimen-
sions. Latent variable reliabilities were .90, .78, .59, .89, respectively, for affect,
loyalty, contribution, and professional respect. Completely standardized theta

Table 4. Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysesa

Model b Z 2 (df) A Z 2 (Adf) CFI GFI AGFI
Null 1572.63 (55)** .307 .168

1-Factor 311.51 (44)** 1261.12 (11)** .766 .792 .688
2-Factor 174.04 (43)** 137.47 (1)** .857 .885 .823
3-Factor 106.54 (41)** 67.50 (2)** .903 .929 .886
4-Factor (Hypothesized) 59.40 (38)* 47.14 (3)** .986 .960 .930
Note.s." a. Statistics reported are based on the use of a covariance matrix.

b. l-Factor model: Representing unidimensional or global LMX; 2-Factor model: Work-related fac-
tor (Contribution and Professional Respect) and an affective feelings factor (Loyalty and Affect); 3-
factor model: Affect factor (Affect), Loyalty factor (Loyalty), and work-related factor (Contribution
and Professional Respect); Hypothesized 4-factor model: Separate factors for Affect, Loyalty, Contri-
bution and Professional Respect.
* p < .05 * * p < .01
deltas are also presented in Figure 1. Completely standardized theta deltas provide
an estimate of the error present in each item such that 1-theta delta = reliability of
the item. Theta deltas can also be derived by subtracting the squared completely
standardized lambdas from one.
Creation of Scales
Scales were created by summing the raw scores (i.e., unit weighting) for
selected items loading on each of the 4 factors, and dividing by the total number
of items representing that factor. The new scale was named LMX-MDM for
multidimensional measure of leader-member exchange. Table 5 shows the inter-
correlations between the four scales measuring LMX dimensions for both the
student and employee samples. The four new LMX scales were moderately corre-
lated, with coefficients ranging from .26 to .63 in the student samples and .32 to
.67 in the organizational employee samples.
Reliability
Internal consistency reliabilities were acceptable for the affect, loyalty, and
professional respect scales but low for the contribution scale. Coefficient alphas
were .90, .78, .60 and .92, respectively, for affect, loyalty, contribution, and
professional respect in the student samples, and .90, .74, .57, and .89, respectively,
for affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect for the organizational
employee samples. Test-retest correlations for the subsample of 126 students were
.83, .66, .56, and .79, respectively, for affect, loyalty, contribution, and profes-
sional respect.
Validity
Validity of the the LMX-MDM may be derived from support for the 4-factor
model using exploratory factor analysis and confirmation using CFA with inde-
pendent samples (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Rahim & Magner, 1995).
/ii .275 ~t .851
82 .254 k21.864 Affect
63 .234 ~l .875
~12.763
84 .693
63 400 ~ l ~ l ~ %2.775
t.oyalty
86 .267 2.856
~3.563
~4.740
57 .455
~3.738
58 .697 ~3.551
~4.456 /
~..285 ~ _..._.~ ///
til1.248
Figure 1. ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysisResults:
CompletelyStandardizedThetaDeltas,Lambdas,and
Phi Coefficientsfor the Hypothesized4-FactorModel
MULT1DIMENSIONALITY OF LMX 61
Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of LMX Dimension Scalesa

Dimension Mean SD 1 2 3 4 Mean SD
1. Affect 4.96 1.53 .65 .38 .67 5.42 1.28

2. Loyalty 5.06 1.25 .62 .38 .57 5.05 1.18
3. Contribution 5.59 1.21 .28 .26 .32 5.47 1.13
4. Professional Respect 5.02 1.55 .63 .45 .28 5.51 1.14
Note: a. Mean values can range from 1 to 7. Values left and below the diagonal represent the development
sample of working students; N ranges from 301-302. Values right and above the diagonal represent the
validation sample of organizational employees, N = 249. All correlations are significant at p < .01.
However, consistent with Schmitt and Klimoski's (1991) argument that validity is
best assessed using multiple approaches, we examined our scale with respect to
response bias susceptibility, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and crite-
rion-related validity.
Response bias susceptibility. Validity of a scale may be questioned if it is
prone to response biases. Although none of the retained items correlated signifi-
cantly with acquiescence or social desirability response sets, it is possible that the
cumulative effects of combining items to form scales might render significant
correlations with response bias tendencies. Correlations between the four LMX
dimensions and acquiescence response set scores were not significant: -.01, .04,
-. 10, and -.01 for affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect, respec-
tively. Correlations between social desirability and affect (.04), loyalty (.08), and
professional respect (.01) were not significant. The correlation between social
desirability and contribution was significant (.16, p < .05), but not of practical
significance based on explained variance (.162 = .026). In sum, these results
suggest that the LMX-MDM scales are not susceptible to two common response
biases (cf. Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992).
Convergent. Perhaps the most common method for establishing conver-
gent validity is to compare factor loadings from exploratory factor analysis and/or
CFA with loadings that would be expected based on theory. The exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis results strongly supported our four a priori dimen-
sions, providing solid evidence of convergent validity. Convergent validity can
also be tested by examining correlations with constructs that should, based on
theory or past empirical findings, be significantly correlated (Campbell & Fiske,
1959). Certainly, a "new" scale of a construct should correlate with an existing
measure of that same construct (DeVellis, 1991). Thus, we expected that the
dimensions of the LMX-MDM would be significantly correlated with the LMX-7
measure. This expectation was confirmed by correlations of .71, .71, .55, and .70
(and .64, .53, .33, and .42 in the student samples) between LMX-7 and affect,
loyalty, contribution, and professional respect (respectively).
Discriminant. Support for the 4-factor model using exploratory factor
analysis and confirmation using CFA with an independent sample provides
support for discriminant validity (Rahim & Magner, 1995). Discriminant validity
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1. 1998

can also be tested by examining correlations with constructs that should, based on
theory or past empirical findings, not be significantly correlated (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959). Because LMX focuses on the relationship between a supervisor and
subordinate, comparisons of the LMX scales with satisfaction with co-workers
would provide evidence of discriminant validity. Correlations of. 12, .25, .00, and
.00 between satisfaction with co-workers and affect, loyalty, contribution, and
professional respect, respectively, provide support for the discriminant validity of
the LMX-MDM.
Criterion-related. Another way to assess the validity of our new measure is
to determine whether the four dimensions are differentially related to various
outcomes consistent with theory and research. Expected relations between the
three Dienesch and Liden (1986) dimensions were presented above, and the same
may be done for the new dimension, professional respect, which was identified in
the critical incidents interviews. A global outcome such as satisfaction with super-
vision, which encompasses multiple beliefs about the leader, is expected to be
positively related to professional respect as well as to affect, loyalty, and contribu-
tion. We would also expect that professional respect would be positively related to
performance ratings. The more a member believes that the leader commands
respect as a professional in the field, the more that member would be expected to
contribute to the work unit and be rated higher on performance.
To test ability of the LMX scales to discriminate among various outcomes,
the outcome variables were separately regressed on the four scales using simulta-
neous entry. This method indicates whether a dimension of LMX helped to
explain variance in the dependent variable after accounting for the effects of the
other dimensions. As shown in Table 6, for four of the six outcome variables, the
LMX-MDM scales as a group were significant. More importantly, the results also
provide support for the multidimensionality of the LMX construct. For each
outcome, only a subset of the dimensions were significant, and each of the dimen-
sions was significant for at least one of the outcomes. However, caution should be
used in interpreting the results for the contribution dimension given its low (.57)
internal consistency reliability.
The LMX dimensions with a significant beta weight varied depending on the
outcome variable and were generally consistent with the expectations noted
above. For example, beta weights for affect, loyalty, and professional respect, but
not contribution were significant for satisfaction with supervision. Beta weights
for affect and loyalty toward the supervisor were not significant with respect to
organizational commitment, but the beta weights for contribution and professional
respect were significant. Although the regression model for turnover intentions
was significant, none of the beta weights were significant (the beta weight for
loyalty approached statistical significance at p < .08). Of all outcomes measured,
performance ratings is of greatest interest because it was assessed by the subordi-
nates' managers, thus reducing the effect of common method variance biases.
Variance in subordinate performance ratings was explained by contribution and
loyalty, but not by affect. Professional respect appeared to play a suppressor role
as it was not correlated with performance (r = .05) but had a marginally signifi-
cant (p < .07) beta weight.

Table 6. R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s e s :
O u t c o m e Variables R e g r e s s e d on the F o u r L M X D i m e n s i o n s
LMX Dimensions: ~ (r)

Professional
Validation Variables Affect Loyalty Contribution Respect Adj. R 2 F df
Organizational .03 .11 .25** .19" .18 ll.01** 4, 178
Commitment (.30) (.33) (.35) (.34)
Autonomy --. 18 .00 .08 .35* .03 1.48 4, 63
(.09) (.09) (. 11 ) (.26)
Satisfaction with -.33 .25 .29* .00 .04 1.72 4, 62
Work (--.02) (.13) (.21) (.01)
Satisfaction with .34** .25* .13 .26** .65 30.60** 4, 61
Supervision (.75) (.67) (.45) (.67)
Turnover Intentions --.26 --.28 a .22 .07 .11 3.02* 4, 63
(--.29) (--.34) (.02) (--. 17)
Performance --.05 .48** .32* -.28 a .24 6.03** 4, 60
(leader rating) (.25) (.41) (.37) (.05)
Notes: a. p < .lO
*p < .05 **p < .01
Comparisons between LMX Dimensions and LMX-7

Although the above results indicating validity of the LMX dimensions
provide an incentive to use the LMX-MDM scale, how does it compare with exist-
ing LMX scales? To address this question, we conducted hierarchical regression
analyses, stepping LMX-7 first into the equations, followed by the four LMX
dimensions entered as a set. The selected dependent variables were those signifi-
cantly predicted by LMX-MDM scales in the initial analyses: satisfaction with
supervision, turnover intentions, and performance. Commitment was assessed
only( in the hospitality sample for which LMX-7 was not available. Examining the
ARk at step two showed that the four LMX dimensions as a set explained an addi-
tional 8% of the variance in supervisor satisfaction after controlling for LMX-7. In
this analysis, affect was the only dimension to have a significant beta weight (.27,
p < .05). The AR2 at step two showed that the four LMX dimensions as a set
explained an additional 18% of the variance in performance when controlling
LMX-7. Here, beta weights for loyalty (.39, p < .03) and professional respect (.37,
p < .03) were significant, and the beta weight for contribution approached signifi-
cance (.25, p < .08). The set of LMX dimensions explained an additional 10% of
the variance in turnover intentions, but the F for this change was not significant
(p < . 11). Reversing the order of entry showed that LMX-7 explained an additional
and significant 5% of the variance in supervisor satisfaction when controlling the
LMX dimensions. However, the 2% and 4% of additional variance explained by
LMX-7 in performance and turnover intentions when controlling the LMX dimen-
sions was not significant. In sum, although these results are based on a small

sample (N = 68), they suggest that LMX-MDM may explain incremental variance
in some outcome variables beyond that explained by LMX-7.
In some studies, such as those in which LMX is not a key variable, LMX
dimensionality may not be a concern and a unidimensional measure may suffice.
Researchers who desire a measure of global LMX could combine all 11 items into
a composite. In our organizational sample, the reliability for the 11-item compos-
ite was .89 and it correlated ,84 with LMX-7. Alternatively, when using structural
equations modeling, researchers could use each of the four dimensions as indica-
tors of global LMX. Providing support for this approach, results of a higher-order
CFA showed that each of the four dimensions contributes to global LMX. 3
Discussion
Through the validation of a multidimensional measure of LMX (labeled
LMX-MDM), support was found for the proposition that LMX is composed of
multiple dimensions as originally suggested by Dienesch and Liden (1986). Four
factors, consistent with a priori categories based on theory and critical incident
interviews, were found using exploratory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor
analyses with independent samples of organizational employees showed a signifi-
cantly better fit for the proposed four-dimensional model than the null model and
the one-, two-, or three-factor models. The affect, loyalty, and professional respect
scales showed high reliability assessed both with internal consistency and test-
retest methods. Further scale development is needed for the contribution dimen-
sion to add an additional item and to increase reliability. With respect to validity,
all four scales were shown to be unrelated to acquiescence bias. Affect, loyalty,
and professional respect were also found to be unrelated to social desirability, and
although contribution was significantly related to social desirability, the effect
was small in magnitude (r 2 = .026), Enhancing convergent validity beyond that
shown by the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the LMX-MDM
scales were shown to be correlated LMX-7. Similarly, discriminant validity
beyond that shown by the factor analysis results was demonstrated by the small
correlations with less theoretically related constructs such as satisfaction with co-
workers. Further support with LMX as a multidimensional construct was provided
by regression results showing that each dimension contributed differentially in the
explanation of variance in each of the outcome variables.
In summary, support for LMX as a multidimensional construct was provided
by a consistent set of results: 1) factor loadings from exploratory factor analysis
provided support for four separate factors; 2) the CFA results showed the four-
dimensional model to be superior to competing models, including the unidimen-
sional model advocated by Graen and colleagues (Graen & Scandura, 1987;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); 3) the four dimensions correlated with theoretically
similar variables such as satisfaction with supervision and showed small or zero
correlations with theoretically dissimilar variables such as satisfaction with co-
workers and 4) regression results indicated that different LMX dimensions were
significant in the explanation of variance in outcome variables.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. I, 1998

In addition to this empirical support, the theoretical significance of "concep-

tual dimensionality" (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990, p. 497) should not be overlooked. In
fact, according to BoUen and Hoyle (1990), empirical support for multidimension-
ality is not an essential requirement for a multidimensional scale to have theoreti-
cal advantages over a unidimensional scale. Conceptually distinct concepts may
be highly, or even perfectly correlated. For example, degree of affect or liking
toward another individual is conceptually very different than respecting the
person professionally. Thus, although our empirical results reveal evidence for a
multidimensional approach to LMX, additional support is provided by the
conceptual distinctiveness of the dimensions.
Support was found for the affect, loyalty, and contribution dimensions that
Dienesch and Liden (1986) identified as providing "a good starting point for
empirical research on the dimensionality issue" (p. 625). The role theory literature
(Katz & Kahn, 1978) on which LMX is based (Graen, 1976) as well as social
exchange theory suggest that other LMX dimensions might also exist. In the first
phase of the current investigation, we explored this possibility empirically and
uncovered two additional dimensions, trust and professional respect. The trust
dimension could not be distinguished from loyalty by our expert raters, but
support was found for professional respect as a unique dimension of LMX. Thus,
the current study makes a theoretical contribution by identifying a fourth dimen-
sion of LMX.
The professional respect dimension may have emerged as a unique compo-
nent of LMX, because it connotes expert power (French & Raven, 1959). Power
has surfaced as a critical component in the leadership (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989) and
social exchange literatures (Gergen, Greenberg, & Willis, 1980). Participants in
leader-member dyads may be inclined to desire close exchanges with those who
have power, as those with power possess resources of value (Novak, 1985). For
example, one who is perceived as professionally respected, would very likely be
well-connected within the organization and perhaps outside of the organization as
a result of prominence in a profession (Ibarra, 1993). Developing an exchange with
such an individual could be an asset in gaining visibility and network ties with
influential individuals within one's organization or profession (Sparrowe & Liden,
1997). A professionally respected dyadic partner might also be valued because of
the knowledge and skills that one might develop as a result of close interactions
with that individual. Consistent with this proposition, Liden et al. (1993) found that
expectations of the other member' s competence were strong predictors of LMX at
the earliest stages of the supervisor-subordinate relationship.
The emergence of professional respect in our critical incident interviews is
also consistent with sociological examinations of organizational leadership. Based
on theory (Barnard, 1938; Bass, 1981) and empirical results (Rees & Segal, 1984),
Fernandez noted that "there are important theoretical and empirical precedents for
viewing respect as a crucial component of relational leadership" (1991, p. 38).
Fernandez confirmed this view by finding respect to be a salient dimension of
leadership in an investigation involving three diverse organizations.
Weaknesses and Strengths
One weakness of the study was the size of the sample used for the critical
incident interviews, which were designed to determine the relevance of the affect,
loyalty, and contribution dimensions of LMX proposed by Dienesch and Liden
(1986) and to identify other possible dimensions of LMX. Although a sample
larger than 24 would have been preferred, this step in item generation is typically
skipped in scale development efforts. Another weakness is that both organizations
involved in the validation segment of the study were for-profit, private sector
organizations. To extend generalizability, the new scale needs to be used in a wide
variety of public and private sector organizations. Also, although data were
collected from two sources (in the manufacturing sample), no data were collected
from sources independent of the dyad. For example, performance data are suspect
because they are from leader reports. Performance data from an independent
source or an objective measure would be desirable (cf. Duarte et al., 1994).
The reliability for the contribution dimension was not acceptable. Despite
writing 30 items to capture contribution, only two items survived all stages of
scale development. Many of the items dealing with member perceptions of the
leader's behaviors that reflected contribution to work did not survive content vali-
dation. Others tended to cross-load on other dimensions, such as professional
respect. The items asking members to report their own work-related contributions~
of which two items survived, appeared to suffer from leniency bias similar to that
uncovered in research on self-performance ratings (Farh & Dobbins, 1989; John
& Robins, 1994; Levy, 1993). An additional issue related to reliability is that it
would be preferable for the contribution scale to consist of three items as is true of
the other three dimensions. This is especially important for uses of the scale
involving structural equations modeling. It has been recommended that with
multiple indicator models, each latent variable should have at least three indica-
tors (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1990).
One of the main strengths of this investigation was the thorough process used
in creating the item pool. Many of the items were based on interviews designed
expressly for this study, and it was through the interview process that the profes-
sional respect dimension was identified. Previous LMX theory had not recognized
the importance of this dimension. Also improving upon previous LMX scale
development efforts (Dienesch, 1985; Phillips, et al., 1993; Schriesheim, et al.,
1992) was the rigorous content validation procedure involving 14 faculty and
doctoral students, and the evaluation of all items and scales for social desirability
and acquiescence response sets. Finding four factors that matched our a priori
dimensions using the conservative approach of exploratory factor analysis with
the number of factors not specified provided strong support for the hypothesized
multidimensionality of LMX (DeVellis, 1991). In addition, the scales developed
from a sample of working undergraduates and MBA students were validated using
CFA with data collected from an independent sample of employees representing
two diverse organizations.
Implications and Future Research
The value of identifying multiple dimensions of LMX lies in understanding
when and how these dimensions relate to issues of development and maintenance
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998
of LMX relationships and their differential impact in the prediction of organiza-

tional outcomes. For example, much research has addressed the relationship
between LMX and job performance (e.g., Duarte, et al., 1993, 1994; Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), but all of these
studies have used a unidimensional measure of LMX. In comparing dimensions,
the results of the current study suggested that loyalty and contribution, but not
professional respect or affect, explained a significant percentage of variance in
performance ratings.
One immediate need for research attention is to revise the contribution scale
so that it meets accepted standards for reliability. As part of this effort, one or
more items should be added so that the scale is suitable for use in multiple indica-
tor structural equation models. Creative item-writing will be necessary so as to
capture member contributions without suffering from biases that occur with self-
performance rating scales.
Perhaps the greatest need for further research using the LMX-MDM is longi-
tudinal research on the LMX development process, as the results for the four
LMX dimensions may differ between developing and established dyads. For
example, perhaps loyalty takes a longer time to develop than professional respect.
Or perhaps, dyads that are based on loyalty and contribution are more enduring
than are exchanges based more on affect or professional respect. Research exam-
ining differences in the relative importance of LMX dimensions between new
dyads in which members are newcomers to the organization versus new dyads in
which members have transferred within the organization is also needed (Dienesch
& Liden, 1986; Kramer, 1995). Only longitudinal tests of the four dimensions can
address such causal issues. Coupled with knowledge regarding differential rates
of development, insight can be gained for the interpretation of outcome measures.
Longitudinal research is also needed to assess the causal ordering of supervi-
sor satisfaction and the LMX dimensions. Although not always highly correlated
(Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982), in the current investigation the correlation between
LMX-7 and JDI satisfaction with supervisor was .80, and correlations ranged
between .45 and .75 for the four LMX-MDM scales. Similarly, in a sample of 221
working MBA students, a correlation of .80 was found between LMX-7 and the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) supervision scale (Schriesheim &
Gardiner, 1992). Moderate to high correlations have also been found between
liking and LMX (Liden et al., 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Although it is known
that the association between supervisor satisfaction and LMX is typically quite
high, the causal ordering of these variables is not clear. Does satisfaction with the
supervisor lead to LMX, or does LMX cause supervisor satisfaction? Alterna-
tively, perhaps most support would be found for reciprocal causation hypothesis
explaining the interplay between supervisor satisfaction and LMX.
Previous LMX scales as well as the LMX-MDM scale presented in the
current study could be criticized for not really assessing exchanges (Sparrowe &
Liden, 1997). Rather, the items in these scales capture psychological states
concerning a member's perceptions of such things as the extent to which the
leader is loyal and likeable. The exchange in leader-member exchange suggests
the need to assess actual exchanges between leader and member. Thus, a recom-

mended project for future research is the development of a social exchange

measure of LMX. A social exchange measure, when combined with psychological
state measures, such as the LMX-MDM, would provide a more complete assess-
ment of LMX.
In conclusion, the current research provides support for the view that LMX is
a multidimensional construct. Further, the results provide psychometric support
for a multidimensional measure of LMX (LMX-MDM). Use of the measure may
enrich LMX theory through an exploration of the different components of the
construct, both in exchange development and in established dyads.
Addendum
Since the current manuscript was accepted for publication, further psycho-
metric research was conducted with the purpose of improving measurement of the
"Contribution" dimension. This dimension now contains three items, the same as
the other dimensions. The first item below remains unchanged. The second item
has been modified from the version that appears in Table 2. The third item below
is new. The anchors for these items remain Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly
Agree = 7. The three Contribution items are:
1. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job
description.
2. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to
meet my supervisor's work goals.
3. I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor.
The Contribution dimension including the three items above produced a

coefficient alpha internal consistency reliability of .74 with a sample of 34 work-
ing undergraduate students and .77 with a sample of 227 production workers and
engineers representing two facilities of a large manufacturing organization.
Acknowledgment: This research was completed while John Maslyn was a

doctoral student at Georgia Institute of Technology. Portions of this paper were
presented at the national meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta,
Georgia, August, 1993 and the meetings of Southern Management Association,
New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 1994. We gratefully acknowledge the
research assistance of Ray Sparrowe, Sandy Wayne, Chris Hertzog, Lisa Brad-
way, Susan Murphy, Dail Fields, and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers.
We would also like to thank Larry James, Chuck Parsons, Chet Schriesheim,
Larry Williams, and Bob Vecchio for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of
this paper. Portions of this research were supported by the Center for Human
Resource Management, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and Chicago
campuses and by the Campus Research Board, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Notes
MULTIDIMENS1ONALITY OF LMX 69
1. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.

2. The size of the manufacturing organization sample precluded the use of more sophisticated approaches (e.g.,
such as comparing CFA models separately for each organization) for assessing differences between the two
organizations.
3. Results of the higher-order CFA are available from the first author upon request.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (I 988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103:411--423•
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991)• Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 36: 421-458•
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups• In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb &
E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology, (pp. 437--447). New York: Holt and Company.
Barnard, C. 1. (1938). The functions of the executive• Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bass. B. M. ( 1981 ). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research, (2nd edition). New York:
The Free Press.
• (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory. research, and managerial applications (3rd
edition). New York: The Free Press.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). The development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy
of Management Journal, 39: 1538--1567.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models• Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238--246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc-
tures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588--606.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange andpower in social life. New York: Wiley•
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social
Forces, 69: 479--504.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1992). Centrality and power in organizations. In R. G. Eccles & N. Nohria (Eds.),
Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, (pp. 191--215). Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal of
Communications, 56: 201)--225.
Butler, J. K. (1991 ). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust
inventory. Journal of Management, 17: 643--663.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix• Psychological Bulletin, 56:81-- 105.
Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellegen's three-and
four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 93--114.
Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable•
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60:151-- 174.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A. (1960)• A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal ~f Consulting Psychology, 24: 349--354.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 13: 46--78.
DeVellis, R. F. ( 1991 ). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dienesch, R. M. (1985, August)• A three dimensional model of leader-member exchange: An empirical test.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, San Diego, CA.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of Management Review. 11: 618--634•
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990)• The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group
and Organization Studies, 15: 395--413•
Duarte. N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993). How do I like thee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14: 239"-249.
. ( 1994)• Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 37: 499--521.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents,
measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 56--60•
Dunegan. K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-member exchange and
subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Manage-
ment, 18: 59--76.

Fahr, J. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Effects of self-esteem on leniency bias in self-reports of performance: A
structural equation model analysis. Personnel Psychology, 42: 835--850.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Mono-
graphs, 56: 215--239.
Fernandez, R. M. (1991). Structural bases of leadership in intraorganizational networks. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 54: 36-53.
Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70: 777--781.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in socialpower,
(pp. 150--167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., & Willis, R. H. (1980). Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. New
York: Plenum.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827--844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25:
161--177.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1201-- 1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers, (pp. 143--165). Kent, OH: Kent State Press.
Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67: 868--872.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on
productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30: 109--131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 9: 175--208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level mult-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-
component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:15--23.
Hackman, R. J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 60: 159--170.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1990). Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human resource
management: Issues and applications. Journal of Management, 16: 337--360.
Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Manage-
ment, 21: 967--988.
Hollander, E. P. (1980). Leadership and social exchange processes. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H.
Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, (pp. 103--118). New York: Plenum.
Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63: 597--606.
Hughes, M.A., Price, R.L., & Marrs, D.W. (1986). Linking theory construction and theory testing: Models with
multiple indicators of latent variables. Academy of Management Review, 11: 128--144.
lbarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and admin-
istrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36:471--501.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement arti-
fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 69"-74.
Jacobs, T.O. ( 1971 ). Leadership and exchange informal organizations. Alexandria, VA: HumRRO.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett. J.B. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhance-
ment and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 206--219.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 36:80--105.
J6reskog, K.G., & S6rbom, D (1989). Lisrel 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Katerberg, R., &Hom, P.W. (1981). Effects of within-group and between groups variation in leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 66:218--223.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The socialpsychology of organizations. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Rela-
tions, 48: 127--145.

Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and
subordinate- reported leadership behaviors from the multiple linkage model. Leadership Quarterly, 6:
361-377.
Kozlowski, S.W., & Doherty, M.L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected
issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 546--553.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342-369.
Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job transfers. Human
Communication Research, 22: 39--64.
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory
behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 619--627.
Levy, P. E. (1993). Self-appraisal and attributions: A test of a model. Journal of Management, 19:51--62.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Management Journal, 23:451--465.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential
for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15:47--119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Bradway, L. K., & Sparrowe, R. T. (1994, April). Leading empowered work groups.
Paper presented as part of a symposium at the annual meetings of the Society of Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychologists, Nashville, TN.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member
exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 662--674.
Long, J.S. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.
Psychological Bulletin, 107: 247--255.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P.J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models
in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20: 439--
464.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and
test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:538--551.
Moorman, R.H., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential contbund-
ing effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupa-
tional & Organizational Psychology, 65:131--149.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van AIstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). An evaluation of good-
ness of fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 430--445.
Novak, M.A. (1985). A study of leader resources as determinants of leader-member exchange. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Universi~' of Cincinnati.
O'Reilly, C. III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of
compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:
492--499.
Phillips, R.L., Duran, C.A., & Howell, R.D. (1993, November). An examination of the multidimensionality
hypothesis of leader member exchange, using both factor analytic and structural modeling techniques.
Paper presented at the meetings of the Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analyses of the styles of handling interpersonal
conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80:
122--132.
Rees, C. R., & Segal, M. W. (1984). Role differentiation in groups: The relationship between instrumental and
expressive leadership. Small Group Behavior, 15: 109--123.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
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: 428--436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M,A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An
investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 579--
584.
Schmitt, N. W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1991). Research methods in human resources management. Cincinnati, OH:
South- Western Publishing.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Gardiner, C.C. (1992). An exploration of the discriminant validity of the leader-member
exchange scale (LMX7) commonly used in organizational research. In M. Schnake (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Southern Management Association, (pp. 91--93). Valdosta, GA: Southern Management Association.
Schriesheim, C.A., Neider, L.L., Scandura, T.A., & Tepper, B.J. (1992). Development and preliminary validation
of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader-member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 52:135-- 147.

Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Lankau, M.J. (1993). Improving construct
measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical
content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19:385--417.
Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.) (1982). Observing and measuring organizational
change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley.
Seers, A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination
of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
33: 283--306.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: The differential effects of
perceived organizational support and leader member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219--
227.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment
and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:
774--780.
Smith, P. C., Balzer, W., Brannick, M., Eggleston, S., Gibson, W., Ironson, G., Josephson, H., Paul, K., Reilly,
C., & Whalen, M. (1987). Manual for the revised JDI and Job in General Scales. Bowling Green, OH:
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University.
Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of antecedents and outcomes.
Hospitality Research Journal, 17:51--73.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 22: 522--552.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper-Collins.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 34: 64--96.
Tsui, A. & Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 586-598.
Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange: A failure to replicate. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 28: 478--485.
Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 5--20.
Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A seven year follow-up. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73: 217--227.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into
middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73:217--227.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1990). The generalizability of the hidden investment process in
leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43: 1099--1116.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate
interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487--499.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader- member exchange on employee citizenship and impres-
sion management behavior. Human Relations, 46: 1431--1440.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange:
A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40:82--111.
Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P.J. (1994). Parsimony based fit indices for multiple indicator regression models: Do
they work? Structural Equation Modeling, 1: 161--189.
Williams, M. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Huber, V. (1992). Effects of group-level and individual-level variation in
leader behaviours on subordinate attitudes and performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 65:115--129.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15:251--289.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception.
Academy of Management Review, 12: 250--264.

Liden 1998

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liden 1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

1998, Vol. 24, No. 1, 43-72

Whether Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is a unidimensional or

Copyright © 1998 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

exchange relationships between individuals appear to be multidimensional. Thus,

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

Although LMX theorizing has included a discussion of both member and

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

Existing Measures of LMX

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

properties, a potential problem that has been addressed in a number of ways:

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

senting two organizations. In addition, six validation variables were collected in

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24. NO. 1, 1998

judges or a high degree of inconsistency in identifying particular items with one of

Table 1. LMX Dimension Definitions a

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24. NO. 1. 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

Acquiescence. Couch and Keniston's (1960) scale for assessing yea/nay

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

T a b l e 2. Exploratory Factor A n a l y s i s Results of the L M X Items:

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of LMX Dimension Scalesa:

1. Affect 4.85 1.32 .63 .30 .64 5.63 1.20

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

Table 4. Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysesa

Null 1572.63 (55)** .307 .168

Note.s." a. Statistics reported are based on the use of a covariance matrix.

/ii .275 ~t .851

82 .254 k21.864 Affect

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of LMX Dimension Scalesa

1. Affect 4.96 1.53 .65 .38 .67 5.42 1.28

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1. 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

LMX Dimensions: ~ (r)

Comparisons between LMX Dimensions and LMX-7

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. I, 1998

In addition to this empirical support, the theoretical significance of "concep-

of LMX relationships and their differential impact in the prediction of organiza-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

mended project for future research is the development of a social exchange

The Contribution dimension including the three items above produced a

Acknowledgment: This research was completed while John Maslyn was a

1. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. I, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. I, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 1998

You might also like